Roy H. Bailey

[Supply, May 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member who just spoke because he dealt with the key issue.

Not only do the people in this place want to see change, but Canadians from coast to coast to coast want to see that change. Would the member agree that there are other democracies in the world that have a better system of ensuring that elected representatives behave in an ethical way rather than having just one appointed person? Would you not agree that an ethics committee--

[Veterans Affairs, May 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it has been 57 years since the end of World War II, so let us take a serious look at how Veterans Affairs is looking after our veterans.

The merchant navy dispute is resolved but only after decades of struggle by the merchant seamen. In a similar vein the aboriginal vets still have their dispute with the government unresolved after 57 years. The government looked after incapacitated vets and kept their money. The government is being sued, lost two court cases and will probably appeal this all the way to the supreme court. I would like to take my grandchildren to see the new national war museum but there is not one. The promised museum has been delayed now for decades.

Veterans Affairs seems to have adopted the same motto as National Defence: Hurry up and wait. I just hope it is not too late for our vets and their families.

[Supply, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, years ago when we had a government that cared, particularly about agriculture and western Canada, it passed an act known by western farmers as the Crow rate. It persuaded farmers to get rid of that and there would be no more subsidies.

I would like to ask the member who has just spoken a question. The last year that we had the Crow rate, this government paid out $760 million in benefits that went directly into the pockets of farmers. Does the member realize that less than 10% of what the government receives in road taxes goes toward grain road improvement in western Canada?

[Petitions, May 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from all four western provinces. The petitioners are calling on the government to ensure the protection of our children from all sexual abusers.

They are asking that parliament pass legislation that would incarcerate indefinitely those offenders designated dangerous sexual child offenders and child rapists who have committed more than one offence against a child.

I am pleased to present this petition at this time.

[Battle of the Atlantic, May 6th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, when Winston Churchill uttered the words “Give us the tools and we will finish the job” Canada responded in a way that was described later by the British as remarkable, astonishing and magnificent.

The Battle of the Atlantic began September 3, 1939 when the German submarine U-30 torpedoed the passenger liner SS Athenia bound for Montreal with more than 1,400 passengers and crew, killing 118 people. The Battle of the Atlantic became the longest running conflict of the second world war, lasting 2,075 days.

Canada's navy began the war with a mere 13 vessels. When the war ended it was the third largest navy on the allied side. The Battle of the Atlantic did not just involve the brave men of our navy, but it also included the merchant marines who suffered the highest percentage of casualties.

More than 2,000 members of the Royal Canadian Navy were killed in all theatres, but most in the Battle of the Atlantic. Additionally, the Book of Remembrance of the merchant navy lists by name--

[Western Canadian Wheat Board Act, April 29th, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-451, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe when the bill became an act that there was anything wrong with calling it the Canadian Wheat Board. However it is now very clear there must be a change to the name. The amendment pays tribute to where the act belongs, in that it is the western Canadian wheat board and clarifies the meaning of the act, its intent and its purchasing powers.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Intoxication of Migratory Birds, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for introducing this motion. I was particularly pleased to listen to the parliamentary secretary who indicated that we need continued scientific proof in this matter.

If I were to tell members this morning that my mother was born in Missouri that might not have any connotation for the House. It is the show me state, and that is a bit of show me in me. I am old enough to know that I have been through many of these things where I have to be shown.

I remember, as a young person going to school in Ontario, lining to take a thimbleful of an iodine mixture. We lived in the goitre belt. People said that it was mass medication and it would kill everyone. We cannot buy table salt today that is not iodized. No one died from drinking the iodine either.

It also reminds me of when I was building a little farm site and I wanted to get the water tested. It had four times as much fluoride as what the cities were trying to put into the water. Again the cry came about mass medication.

Let me tell members about the Migratory Bird Act. Let me talk about driving down a road to visit one of my schools in the western part of my riding. A whole section of yellow stubble would turn black. About 90% of all the fly away from the Canada geese came down that way.

I, and everyone else, co-operated, as the parliamentary secretary said, when it came to doing away with the lead shot in shotguns. Many hunters were American and they would take a big goose when it came down, cut it down the middle, peel back the skin and slide out the breast meat. All the lead shot remained in the bird. Other predators would come along and eat the lead shot, and were killed. Therefore everyone agreed to the removal of lead shot.

The member who introduced the motion talked about the support of Ducks Unlimited. That is rather ironic because Ducks Unlimited is a prairie organization. It is not really engaged in fishing but it was one of the supporters with regard to taking out the lead shot in the shotgun shells. Lead is really poisonous.

I can tell members what happened one time that ended up being very costly. We were unloading grain after midnight. We had an old truck providing the lights for the loader to unload. We were so tired that we forgot to put the hood down. When we went out in the morning there was my neighbour's cow, good for two things, and that was nothing twice. It was dead. It died by licking the lead around the battery. That is how poisonous lead can be.

The Canadian Alliance does not want to move on a motion that does not have any scientific proof about the lead sinker. There was nothing relating to lead poisoning of these birds. One report talks about a little history of the true agenda. This reminds me about people telling me about gophers. The other day a scientific fellow told me about gophers. He said we should not kill gophers because they chase and eat mice. No one ever heard of that before.

The experimentation the parliamentary secretary mentioned has never resulted in scientific proof of the actual destruction of large numbers of birds. That has never taken place. The government must take the lead through experimentation and show, with the co-operation of all the fishermen from across Canada, that there is scientific proof. When it does that we will be right there to support the banning of these lead sinkers.

Until now there has not been sufficient evidence to prove its demise. We will have to find another item which is as heavy. I did not know that fishermen bite this thing with their teeth. I could not do that. Then they throw it out on the line. What happens if it disconnects from the line? Lead being one of the heaviest metals, it sinks to the bottom.

I am reading from an article by a wildlife biologist who is also chairman of the fish and wildlife advisory board in Ontario. He states there is not sufficient evidence. He too, along with the parliamentary secretary and my caucus, would support the motion. We will support further evidence and findings but at the present time that would be like me supporting what the government has put forth in gopher poison which does not work. Let us have true evidence and we will support it. Until then we will wait for the testing to take place.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a short while ago my hon. colleague was asked if he was from the same planet. I can assure hon. members I am from the same planet and the same country on the same continent.

I find it rather divisive when I hear members saying that the emphasis should be on the government to share an industry. I remind my colleagues in the Bloc that in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C., which have a great deal more population than Quebec, there is no automobile industry there. There was at one time, the plant is still there. Why are we talking about the responsibility of government to share an industry?

It is not the role of the federal government to say this should be put here, there or there. It has not in the past and if it does now I will be the first one over there to tell it what I want in Saskatchewan.

[Criminal Code, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since I spoke earlier on a different section of the bill I have had a lot of entertainment come my way. It is not all sadness in here. I boarded the plane yesterday to fly back and I always get on at a small airport where everyone knows me. One of the security officers said, “Check that man for gophers”. Everybody knew that one.

There is a lot of humour coming from the phone calls and the letters that I have received. I want to share some of that with the House because it shows that people living between the Red River and the Rockies do not understand the problem. One kind lady phoned me and asked what those gophers eat. I told her they eat grass and they love crops. I said they really like chickpeas. She said that was the answer. All we had to do was sew chickpeas around each field and herd all of the gophers over there. I thought to herd gophers would be like trying to herd a bunch of cats. Herding gophers gives the House some idea as to what people know about the events that are taking place.

The most interesting comment came from an e-mail from a chap in Vancouver. He said those gophers do the people out there a lot of good as they loosen and aerate the soil. I said, “Are you kidding me?” He was dead serious about it.

When I was driving to the airport I heard that somebody at the University of Manitoba said that these pesky critters do a lot of good. Someone said that they eat mice. That may be true, I do not know. I will tell the House that I rode hundreds of miles on horseback with a horseback view of gophers and mice out in the grass and I have yet to see a gopher eat a mouse. I rode miles and miles around fields on a tractor. I have watched gulls and different things pick up mice but I have never seen a gopher eat a mouse. I have pulled those old wooden granaries with a tractor and underneath were mice and gophers living in good friendship with one another. After arriving this morning I decided to phone people who are older than I am and I could not find anyone who could ever remember seeing a gopher eating a mouse.

Everyone agrees that people who do things like my hon. colleague talked about, such as dropping a cat out of a window and so on, should be punished. The problem with the bill is who is it that would determine what is wilful and reckless. Who would determine that?

On the weekend we had a trade show. I had walked around for a while and a former student of mine related an incident. The raccoons have moved into our area. I guess I should have known but I was not aware that they could entice a dog down to a pond or a dugout and could drown the dog. They do that by attacking and turning the dog over so that it cannot swim. The raccoon is a beautiful swimmer. I asked what he did. He said that he was not too far for a shot and let one go. He got one raccoon and the dog freed himself and then he got the other one. Was that a wilful and reckless act? Someone will have to determine whether it was or not? Someone will have to determine if a man trying to save his dog should be charged with a wilful or reckless act. I am not stretching the point here. I am not taking something totally out of context.

We talk of any animal having the capacity to feel pain.

Alberta is the only province in Canada that brags that it is rat free. How does it keep itself rat free? It uses a poison. That poison causes the animal to literally bleed to death internally. Are we going to take away the most effective poison we have ever had? That is a good question.

A call came in from a lady who had a 4-H goat problem. She was at the 4-H day at the fair in Armstrong, B.C., where she was giving a demonstration of trimming the goats' hooves. When I was a boy I used to like to watch the farriers trimming the horses' hooves. Every once in a while they would get too close and they would draw blood. That is what happened this day. The lady was showing them how to trim the hooves. The goat moved a bit and she got a little into the meat and drew blood. She was just swarmed by people saying “Look at that. Trimming the hooves is cruelty to animals”.

This wide open bill has gone too far. I would like to quote what has been said in the House by members opposite:

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

I would like to believe that, I really would, but if that is the case let us not be saying “read my lips”. We must put those words into the bill. Every agricultural organization, from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture right down the line, would drop their defence. That is what they want to hear but it is not in the bill.

I ask this question: who decides what act constitutes cruelty? Many people have seen horse pulls. Some would say that is cruel. Some say that the rodeo activity of roping a calf is cruel. Some say bulldogging is cruel. Who will make those decisions? Is it going to be written in the bill or is a lobby group going to decide?

I want to close with these words that I hope will be forever ingrained in the members who vote for the bill. Criminal laws in the hands of special interest groups, to destroy legitimate farming and related food production, is the entire fear of the industry. Let me repeat that if members are going to allow the whims of the animal rights groups to decide the penalties and decide what is cruel, members are putting in jeopardy the entire industry, from ranching to furs and everything else.

It must be put in the bill. It must be put in the bill that those things which are legitimate and used in animal husbandry now will not be changed with the bill. If it is put it in the bill, the entire agricultural industry will support it.

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the will of everyone on that side of the House but I do have many friends on that side and I do know they have the same desire and the same will that I have.

I remember one time in the provincial legislature being reminded by the premier that we were the highest court in the province and that we would overrule and we would make those decisions. That applies here as well. This House is the highest court in the land. With the use of the notwithstanding clause we become the highest court.

We do not want any more wishy-washy lukewarm procedures on that side of the House. We want to come out fighting and to stay fighting.

Do not worry about affecting anyone else but the young people. Do not worry about ruining anyone's lives except those of the young people. Do not worry about making people suffer except the young people. Let us think about that. Everything else will take a back seat and second place. Let us get the show on the road. We can do it if we want to.