Dave Chatters

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me no great pleasure to rise once again on Bill C-5. It is tragic that the potential of this place, and the respect I have always had for it having always been a student of politics, has come to this when it does not need to.

A good number of people on the government side, perhaps not for the same reason, also see it as a bad piece of legislation. Here we are repeatedly expressing the same concerns over and over again because that is the only tool that is available to us.

I have been here for nine years. It is not long compared to some people, and certainly not long compared to the hon. member for Davenport who chairs the committee and who also has real concerns about the bill. I have always thought we could produce so much better legislation if we were to allow the committee to have a topic for a bill before it is introduced in the House. The all party committee would access the most expert opinions on any number of topics from anywhere in the world to develop and introduce a bill that would reflect the desires and the intentions of all parties in the House.

It seems so logical to me that after 130-some years in this place that would be the process we would have achieved to give a meaningful role not only to the ministers of the government, but to all members in the House and to all members of the various committees.

I do not understand the government. It gave the bill to the committee for some nine months and various members of the committee introduced some 300 amendments. There was some real co-operation and compromise in committee to come to a unanimous report. Then the minister, and therefore the government on instruction from the minister, turned around and rejected all the work that went into the committee report. I do not know whether that was a lack of confidence in the work of the committee by the minister or whether that was a power play by the bureaucrats who draft these bills and cannot stand to see anybody change the bill that they intended by introducing amendments.

It is a process that is severely flawed and could be so much better and more productive in this place. To engage in this kind of endless filibustering is frustrating and a non-productive use of our time.

The other concern I have with the bill is that of a landowner and a rancher which I have been all my life. Both my wife and I have always been proud to be raised on the farm. We decided we wanted to have a ranch, to raise animals and raise our family in that environment. We have always considered ourselves pretty dedicated stewards of the land and protectors of the environment and the species that live in that environment. We always had a dream to do that. Over the years that dream has been somewhat altered because of the economic realities of agriculture today and the modest living that we are allowed to get out of that enterprise.

It makes me quite angry that for some 40 years or better of my life I worked in all parts around the globe to sustain a dream of being a landowner and rancher and then see the government abuse its power, to be able to take that dream away from me without compensation. I find that difficult and arrogant.

From that perspective it upsets me. It upsets me that there are people in this place, and in the country, who are so arrogant that they think they can change a process that has been going on this planet for millions of years. Species have been adapting and evolving. Climate has been changing and forcing the adaptation and evolution of species for as long as the planet has existed and it will continue for another million years. Certainly we have a responsibility as human beings to do everything we can on the planet to mitigate our influence on the planet but to think that we can actually halt or reverse that process is arrogant beyond belief. It is hard to understand how we can do that.

I will address some of the concerns of the bill. I recently received a letter as a result of an obvious and unexplainable flip-flop and change in direction by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association from a position opposing the bill to a position supporting the bill. The letter was from a fellow rancher who, instead of engaging in work in the oil field as I did to support my habit of ranching, became a lawyer so he could be a rancher. He is the director of the Western Stock Growers' Association. He expressed his concern with the decision of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association to change its position on the bill by saying:

We believe the vast majority of those persons involved in raising cattle in Canada would not support a law which would allow their federal government to confiscate their land without fair compensation under the guise of protecting habitat (their land) of a species at risk; as well as the other issues addressed in the fact sheet faxed herein.

I agree with him. I do not know what in the world was offered to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association to convince it to change its mind. It is beyond belief. I was a member of that organization for many years. Certainly in the decision it made it is not doing the job that it was elected to do in representing the interests of cattle owners.

One of the other aspects of the bill that strikes terror in my heart, and it should strike terror in the hearts of most people, is the fact that for even unintended violations of the bill a landowner could face extremely severe penalties under the law, up to a million dollars and five years in jail.

Most landowners make a modest living from the land for the work they do. To be forced into a situation where they must defend themselves through the legal system against that kind of penalty should strike fear into the hearts of those people because very few of those people engaged in farming and ranching have the resources to defend themselves against the Government of Canada and against this kind of charge.

It would literally destroy them, bankrupt them and take away the livelihood that they had worked hard to put in place for themselves. That alone should make members think differently. Landowners do not have the same privileges as members of the House whose legal defence bills are picked up by the taxpayers of Canada.

[The Environment, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that credit for clean energy exports was a myth and the bubble has burst.

It is also clear that there is no provincial or industry support for the ratification of Kyoto. Cabinet is divided on the issue and now the special cabinet committee appointed by the Prime Minister himself has studied the implications of this protocol and has come out opposed to the agreement.

Will the minister heed the wise advice of his colleagues and abandon the Kyoto protocol in favour of a realistic, made in Canada solution?

[The Environment, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister has made it very clear in the House a number of times that Canada's ratification of the Kyoto protocol depends, among other things, on obtaining credits for clean energy exports to the United States. This weekend the G-8 made it clear that Canada will not receive any such credits. There will be no more concessions.

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. It is now clear that Canada cannot meet the terms of the Kyoto protocol without significant economic damage. Will he abandon his unachievable plan and negotiate a reasonable North American agreement instead?

[The Environment, April 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my response to that answer is where is the study to back up those allegations?

A few years ago in the House the Minister of Industry estimated that gun registration would cost $85 million. Today the cost of that gun registration is over $700 million.

Can we expect the same kind of accuracy in the minister's estimates of the cost of Kyoto?

[The Environment, April 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago the Minister of the Environment claimed that compliance with the Kyoto protocol would only cost Canadians $5 billion. Last week the minister estimated that the Kyoto protocol could cost Canadians $10 billion. The numbers have just doubled, but the studies by industry, academics and government have been upward of $40 billion.

The Minister of the Environment is on his cross-country fearmongering tour allegedly consulting Canadians on Kyoto, so when is he going to fess up to the real cost of Kyoto?

[An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again participate in the debate on Bill C-15B at report stage. I believe I addressed the bill at second reading but in view of the government's position on the bill I do not think one can revisit one's concerns often enough.

If the evidence I have seen is any indication of the reasons for bringing the bill forward by the former justice minister, it is for all the wrong reasons. I have a fundraising letter in my office from an animal rights group suggesting that the bringing forward of the bill to the House of Commons by the former justice minister was a payoff for supporting her in a very close election race in the last election. I am really concerned that the bill was brought forward for that reason.

I really think this whole recognition of animals in a Walt Disney sort of animated way leaves the wrong impression and creates these kind of extreme animal rights groups that want to elevate the status of animals to the status of humans with human rights. It is quite ridiculous.

As a person who has been involved in animal husbandry all of my life and who grew up in a family that was sustained through hunting, fishing and the traditional practices that many people today, particularly our aboriginal people in Canada, still maintain is a necessary part of our culture and our very existence, I feel the bill could threaten those ways of life and for reasons that are not necessary.

I think everyone here would agree that we need to enforce the law. Although I am not certain, we may even need to put in place more severe penalties or more severe procedures to punish real cruelty to animals which does exist and does happen. I think the member who spoke previously pointed out some examples which I certainly would not deny. However, life sometimes requires acts that would not be considered kind to animals, whether that be in the slaughter of animals for food, in the husbandry of livestock when someone is ranching or the harvesting of wildlife for sustenance.

If people ever lived in a rural setting and been part of that life they would recognize that it would not be a kind world if domesticated animals were left to fend on their own. I still support the concept of ownership of animals but part of the whole aspect of having animals in the property rights section is a responsibility to look after one's animals in a humane and decent way. I have always taken great pride in the way I looked after my animals and took care of them. If we do that animals are quite content, quite happy and life is as it should be. In those instances where it is necessary to neuter animals or to dehorn cattle, for example, these are not pleasant jobs but they are necessary and part of that culture and lifestyle.

Anyone who has ever been out in the wild or for that matter has watched films showing the taking of animals by wolves, by coyotes and by predators has observed cruelty to the extreme.

There really is nothing more cruel than a wolf taking down a deer or a moose and eating it alive. It is not a pleasant sight. Reality is that life is not always kind and nature is not always kind.

The problem here is that we are going to the extreme. Anybody, whether a person who owns pets or is involved in animal husbandry, who is not terrified when they look at the bill and terrified at the prospect of being maliciously prosecuted by some organizations with very deep pockets is foolish. While someone may or may not eventually find justice, and I would hope they would, our justice system process is extremely expensive and one most of us cannot afford, particularly when we are seeking justice through court action brought on by a group of animal rights people or by the Government of Canada with extremely deep pockets. One could certainly face bankruptcy and destruction of their family. We have seen all kinds of examples of that. As members of parliament, every day we hear from people involved in those kinds of situations and who are trying to defend themselves against a corporation or a government entity with deep pockets. It is a frightening procedure and totally unnecessary.

I myself have seen incidents of unnecessary animal cruelty by those who keep animals for pets or for sustenance. My observation is that we are not enforcing the existing law as we should be. We could do a lot more.

I have watched people in my neighbourhood who I do not think intended any cruelty or intended to be unkind to their animals. They were raised in an urban environment and lived in the country and thought it would be a wonderful thing to raise their own wheat and produce meat raised without pesticides and all the rest of it. That is the kind of mentality of people who move to the country because they do have that right and it is maybe a good thing to do.

In this particular instance these people did not have any idea what those animals needed in the way of being looked after properly with the intention of being turned into food at some point. Those animals were terribly abused. My wife phoned the local animal cruelty authorities on a number of occasions. It was not until one animal was dead and the other very close to death that the authorities were willing to do anything.

Before we go down the road we are going down and make a real mistake, we could do a lot more by simply tightening up existing laws and leaving animal cruelty under the property section in the legislation. I think the minister could accomplish what he is attempting to accomplish without endangering an entire way of life and an entire culture of many Canadians.

[The Environment, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear that the environment minister cannot provide us with any credible analysis at this time. The finance department has been conducting economic research and analysis to assess the potential cost of policy options to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

To start the public consultations, will the Minister of Finance immediately table the reports of his department that it has already produced on the cost of implementing the Kyoto accord?

[The Environment, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the report tabled in the House yesterday by the Minister of the Environment lacks scientific credibility. The report acknowledges the economic costs of implementing Kyoto but then goes on to propose deducting the cost of the drought in the prairies and the ice storm in Ontario and Quebec.

By their own admission, the computer models show that implementing the Kyoto commitment will have no discernable impact on climate change. If implementing Kyoto will not mitigate the effects of climate change, how does the minister justify deducting the costs of prairie drought and the eastern ice storm from the economic cost of Kyoto when these events will continue in their opinion?

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is presentations like the one the hon. member just made that reduce the credibility of this whole argument.

This debate is about lowering the emission of greenhouse gases. Those greenhouse gases would include mainly water vapour, carbon dioxide and some other much more minor things. When members wander off and talk about water and air pollution, smog in cities and all the rest of it, it takes away from the credibility of this argument. As a matter of fact, the greenhouse industry in Canada pumps carbon dioxide into greenhouses because it makes plants grow much better.

Could the member opposite focus on the issue we are debating, which is the reduction of greenhouse gases?

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into the debate on MMT again. We went around and around on that one. I obviously do not accept the member's analysis. It was some time ago and it makes no sense to go back to that. I only used it as an example of where the government should have taken some time to analyze what was before it and that it would not have gone down the road it went down if it had been a little more objective in its analysis.

I am pleased to see the Progressive Conservative members representing their party taking the position on this supply day motion that they have because their position has not always been that way. The former prime minister, the member for Calgary Centre, said in a conference in Toronto that we had better follow through. He told the conference if we were not to come through on our commitments we would surely face fines or other financial penalties and, more important, our reputation as a reliable responsible partner in international agreements would be severely tarnished. He went on to chastise the government for dragging its feet and taking too long to meet the commitment that it made

I am glad to see the turnaround. It was probably led by the prospective candidate in Calgary Southwest running for the Conservative Party who emphatically said over and over again that the Progressive Conservative Party was not in favour or ratifying Kyoto. I am glad to see the positive influence it has had on the members in the House today.

It has been my position from day one in the debate, and I think the position of others here, that there is no question the climate is changing. Having grown up in northern Alberta there is no question the climate is changing. I worked for a good part of my working life in the Canadian Arctic and the signs are certainly there, the climate is changing.

However, the science, based on the computer modelling, that attributes that change solely to the influence of man and the burning of fossil fuels is suspect. The scientists involved have not been able to get the computers to replicate the reality of what has already happened and, therefore, it raises some questions.

I spent a lot of years drilling oil wells, looking for oil and gas in the Canadian Arctic. It was pretty obvious when we checked the bit cuttings as they came up from beneath the surface of the earth that they were full of tropical plants and animal fossils from millions of years ago. In fact, science tells us that oil and gas are formed from the rotting and the dying of plants and animals. Over eons it becomes compressed and produces coal and oil and gas. It was clear that at some time in the past history of the planet the Canadian Arctic was a tropical region.

There is all kinds of evidence through ice samples and scientific analysis from Greenland and the Canadian Arctic that there were times in our past history when CO

2

in the atmosphere was much higher than it is now.

It is clear that the climate of the planet is continually changing. It will always be changing. For us to think that we have the power to overcome nature, to mitigate climate and to control climate is giving us far more credit than we as humans deserve.

Let us stop and give some sober second thought to this thing. Let us do what we can to develop the technologies that reduce all kinds of emissions in Canada and around the world. We can then sell those technologies and get way past Kyoto, as we must. We can end our dependence on fossil fuels and we shall.