Roy H. Bailey

[Battle of Vimy Ridge, April 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as I left the coffee shop this morning I glanced down at one of the papers. It read “April 9, 2002, 85 years ago the birth of our nation”. As the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs has alluded, this indeed was a turning point in the history of Canada.

It is hard to imagine that Canada was not quite 50 years old when the battle of Vimy Ridge took place. It was there that Canadians distinguished themselves in battle. On that day, very much like the weather today only it was colder with snow and sleet in the air, the order was given. It was hell but the Canadians three days later had performed what the other allied forces could not have done and were unable to do in capturing Vimy Ridge.

This day, April 9, 2002, is also a double remembrance day because, as the hon. minister alluded, today we buried our Queen. I would like to join these two remembrances together because they do have a commonality.

On this day we said goodbye to Queen Mum. I watched part of that on television this morning. I was reminded that as a boy, I stood on Dewdney Avenue in Regina and watched the Queen go by. That was in 1939, about 22 years after the battle. I remembered that trip. There was no pavement. There was a Model A. There was Mom, Dad and seven kids. All I remember about that was that my dad could reach through any part in that Model A and somehow find the back of my head. That day was revered in my memory because before the parade there was a line of veterans some who had experienced Vimy Ridge, so the two went together.

I would like to read into the records this morning a poem that I taught in school. I do not think it is in the literature books anymore but I remember this well. This poem is entitled “London Under Bombardment” and was written by Greta Briggs. It was the personification of the city of London. As we revere this day, this could well be the Queen Mum speaking. It reads:

I, WHO am known as London, have faced stern times before, Having fought and ruled and traded for a thousand years and more; I knew the Roman legions and the harsh-voiced Danish hordes; I heard the Saxon revels, saw blood on the Norman swords. But, though I am scarred by battle, my grim defenders vow Never was I so stately nor so well-beloved as now. The lights that burn and glitter in the exile's lonely dream, The lights of Piccadilly, and those that used to gleam Down Regent-street and Kingsway may now no longer shine, But other lights keep burning, and their splendour, too, is mine, Seen in the work-worn faces and glimpsed in the steadfast eyes When little homes lie broken and death descends from the skies. The bombs have shattered my churches, have torn my streets apart, But they have not bent my spirit and they shall not break my heart. For my people's faith and courage are lights of London town Which still would shine in legends though my last broad bridge were down.

This morning as we look at Vimy Ridge and at the passing of Queen Mum, I am reminded that on the day of the battle of Vimy Ridge our Queen Mum, who we laid to rest today, was 17 years old. Through all that noise on Vimy Ridge, they told me they could hear faintly in London all the guns, bombing and blasting of artillery.

John McCrae wrote in his poem, which has been immortalized and which most Canadian students still learn by memory, the following:

To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high.

We have not always held that torch high. However this is not a day to deal with the negative. This is a day to deal with the positive. This is a day to deal with this great military day in our history. This is a day that we too can add with this remembrance our respect to the Queen.

November 11 last year was a great renewal. We noticed that across Canada attendance at November 11 services was up. I am very pleased, as a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, that the government recently moved toward funding work on the nation's cenotaphs, particularly that great white monument that stands in the sky, the Vimy Ridge monument. In the travelling society there perhaps is no other site in all the world that Canadians recognize so clearly.

I am very pleased that we hold this memory and we hold that torch high. We need to tell this story and we need to keep telling it.

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

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago we received a lot of data from census Canada showing that a shrinking number of Canadians live in what is truly called rural Canada.

The vast majority of people in Canada live in a centre of 10,000 plus. As a result of that, one can take a look at many bills that come before the House, certainly Bill C-5 at the present time. Bill C-5 only involves a very small group of people who live in the rural area.

Yesterday we discussed Bill C-15B. Were the people in the ranching business consulted? Was the dairy industry or the hog industry consulted? No. These people were not consulted and yet they are the ones who will be the most affected.

This morning in the veterans affairs committee we had what I considered very good consultation. We had a gentleman who was very knowledgeable about the subject and we asked questions and so on.

The vast majority of people who this bill would affect were never consulted. Today we have a new president of the Saskatchewan Stock Growers' Association. He lives in a little area north of the No. 1 highway in Gouldtown, Saskatchewan. Was the Saskatchewan Stock Growers' Association consulted about the effects of Bill C-5? No. Yet its members own millions of acres of grazing land and they were not consulted.

If we were going to pass legislation applicable to a mass urban area like Ottawa or Toronto, there would be public consultation all over the place but when we deal with basic, rural agricultural problems, it does not matter any more because if we took all the people engaged in agriculture and spread them across Canada there would not be a voting block anyway. It really would not change the composition of members in the House. It is not a big issue except for those who happen to live there.

I was in Guelph, Ontario two weeks ago. The people there asked me to give a talk on how the agri-industry could continue to operate with such bills as C-5, C-15B and Kyoto, especially since it was not consulted on any of them?

I have seen a lot of the government's perception of consultation. Some crown corporations that are going to raise their rates put advertisements in the paper and invite the public to come. Three people may show up. The most common thing heard is that the government will simply go ahead and act anyway.

I am familiar with a provincial government issuing an environmental regulation to a group of people who for years used particular patches of land for grazing their animals.

Instead of telling them they could only use the land for grazing during a certain period of the year, the ruling came down stating that the piece of land had to be divided into three sections and that only one of those sections could be grazed every third year to preserve the nesting of certain birds. In order to make that land worthwhile, they had to put in miles of ineffective fencing.

This is very strange legislation. If a landowner or a land renter accidentally hurts or kills a particular animal, he or she must prove due diligence; that is, that he or she did everything possible beforehand to find out if that endangered species was on the land.

When the Rafferty dam was created in Saskatchewan we found that rare species of animals, animals which had never lived in the area before, moved in because of the water. Some people who graze their cattle near that dam still do not know that those animals are there. Under this legislation they would have to prove that they were guilty without due knowledge of what was happening. That is contrary to every other law we have in Canada which states that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

I know what people will say. They will say that the government would never do that. I know people will say that we would have a logical excuse. However, under this bill, the landowner has to prove that he is innocent.

I really believe that we in rural Canada from coast to coast are being totally ignored. Yesterday we talked about the cruelty to animals bill. The government never once consulted, learned about or asked about established practices that have been going on in this country since before Confederation and yet, under the proposed legislation, it will have the right to give its interpretation of such things as suffering and the right to say that a particular practice will no longer continue even though it never consulted with the people involved prior to the bill coming to the House.

The committee which studied Bill C-5 never heard from the people actually involved in land ownership. We did have good representation from industry and from some cattlemen but we never really heard from the national cattlemen's organization.

The government has never had the courage to say that the practices, such as branding, which have been going on forever in this country, will no longer be required. Instead, it waits. Let it say that a person who has an endangered species without knowing it is guilty of not protecting it. How can we protect something if we do not know it is there?

I found some endangered species on a piece of property and I reported them. The owners of thee property and the environment people were very happy about that. However if an individual visits someone who owns land and a particular endangered species is destroyed unknowingly on that piece of land, such as being ridden over by a horse, or an endangered piece of vegetation was trampled on, then they are guilty. We have to go back and change that part of the bill.

[Cenotaphs, March 20th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the member for Saint John and the parliamentary secretary have covered everything sufficiently I believe. I do not think there is any question about the support on both sides of the House for the intent of this bill. I am particularly pleased at the speed at which the government and the new minister have responded to our request. I think that quick response is resonating across Canada at this time.

I would like to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Saint John that in my area we have some very unique cenotaphs, unique in the sense that people rushed into Saskatchewan in the last best west. There was a settlement, an elevator and in some cases a railway. People, particularly those who had immigrated from the British Isles, quickly joined the armed services and the Canadian army, which at that time of course was attached to the British imperial army.

Early surveyors of Saskatchewan had said that some of that land was not suitable for settlement. They were proven correct. It was suitable for ranching but not for cultivation.

In Saskatchewan, particularly southern Saskatchewan, we have cenotaphs that are really part of a larger grazing land. We are doing a disservice by not taking a look at moving them. With the help of local municipal groups and using the equipment we have today, they could be moved to settlements whereby they would become memorials to those still living in inhabited areas. To leave them to disintegrate and fade away with the sands of time does not show much respect for those who fell in wartime.

Therefore, I appreciate what the parliamentary secretary has said and I am particularly interested in the involvement process. I would like to see the schools and local municipalities involved, but above the legion itself. We should give the legion the responsibility, which it would very gladly take, of co-ordinating a particular area of the province.

For example, take the city of Weyburn. Members of the legion there could be responsible for a cenotaph in an area where there was no longer a legion branch. They could go out as ambassadors with their medals, their colours and their ties and talk to municipal groups and local school boards about preserving the cenotaph. They could tell them that there would be some support from the government. We could go to the local people and with a little encouragement the money would be there.

We certainly support this motion. I can assure the House that if it comes before the committee on veterans affairs I know everybody will lend resounding support to the minister and the government to get the job done.

With every year that goes by, it will be that much more costly. Time is on our side. If we do not replace and fix them now, they may go beyond the point where they cannot be fixed.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-15B is unofficially a declared war on agriculture in every province of Canada. It is a declared war on practices that have existed long before we became a nation. It is a declared war on a multimillion dollar industry across Canada.

The question that all agriculture groups across Canada are asking is simple. If it is not the minister's intention to change what is lawful today, why does she not simply raise the penalties for existing cruelty to animals? That is the question being asked. Why does that not happen?

Every agricultural group across Canada is threatened by this piece of legislation. In my area it will soon be calving time on farms and ranches. After calving time comes the annual round up. The bill would provide the minister with the right to declare that the practice of castration is harmful. The minister has a right to declare that these animals must be put under so there is no pain, which would cost ranchers and farmers millions of dollars. That right remains with the government. The act of branding undoubtedly will come under the jurisdiction of the act.

Let us look at more. I have heard people talking about chickens no longer being allowed to be housed in cages, that they must roam freely about and have so many square feet per bird. Let us think about what people will pay for eggs.

Let us look at the organization called PETA that tried to sell the idea that cow's milk was harmful to children because extracting the milk hurt cows. Why does the minister not declare what constitutes cruelty? Could we trust the government to determine the definition of cruelty? I think not.

I have another extremely important question. How does a group calling itself the Animal Alliance of Canada get a charitable donation number from the government? How does it do that? It will use its propaganda in the upcoming byelection in Calgary Southwest. The government must have responsibility for these actions.

Let me quote from some of the documents I have before me. One is a letter written by the director of the Animal Alliance of Canada which states:

Bill C-15B, which makes changes to the animal cruelty section of the Criminal Code, recognizes for the first time that animals are not just “property”, but rather beings in their own right who feel pain and are therefore deserving of legal protections.

The letter goes on to say:

I can't overstate the importance of this change. This elevation of animals in our moral and legal view is precedent setting and will have far, far reaching effects. We'll make sure of that.

This is a letter from the director of the Animal Alliance of Canada who then goes on to state in support of the bill that it will cost Canadians millions and may drive some people totally out of agriculture. She continues:

Getting our politicians to pass good animal protection laws is about reward and punishment--rewarding them for doing a good job and punishing them for doing a poor one.

The House has not heard anything yet. Members should listen carefully to the following:

The Liberals have done a good job on Bill C-15B--

They should tell the hundreds of thousands of farmers, ranchers and hunters from coast to coast that this same group, which had the charitable donation, wrote this letter to go out as a fundraiser.

The Liberals go on to say:

--our first chance to reward them will be in the upcoming by-election in Calgary Southwest, Preston Manning's old electoral district.

I hope ranchers and farmers from coast to coast will listen to this last bit.

With your help, Animal Alliance's political arm, Environment Voters, will run a campaign in the by-election to help the Liberal candidate get elected. It'll be a tough fight. This is the Canadian Alliance's heartland. Nevertheless, if the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives split the right wing vote, it's possible for the Liberal candidate to win.

That would be funny if it were not so pitiful. We finally got the government to bring forward this bill out of an omnibus bill but it is about to destroy industry in my constituency in my province and industries from coast to coast that are asking for support on this side of the House. I can assure the House that the rural caucus on that side of the House cannot with good conscience ever stand in this House and vote for this bill.

I cannot believe that would be possible. I cannot believe the members I know, who raise chickens, hogs, cattle and so on, would have the fortitude to stand up and vote for this bill.

My colleagues on this side of the House have always said that we should put in tougher penalties for cruelty. If the minister were to state it now, this bill would not even be necessary. Are we going to cave in to the lobbyists?

In conclusion, the most recent census shows very clearly that the number of people in rural Saskatchewan is declining. It is a mind process over there. Which is more important, the lobby groups and the number of x s they can make or the industry from coast to coast? That truly is the question.

I am asking the House and pleading with the members opposite, for goodness sake, for the welfare of Canada, block the bill and destroy it before it becomes law.

[Taxation, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Arcola, Saskatchewan, is a beautiful town located in the southeastern part of the province, one of the many towns that I am proud to represent. Arcola is remembered as the town used as the background for the filming of W. O. Mitchell's

Who Has Seen the Wind?

Recently fire destroyed the community rink. The projected cost to replace the rink is $1.4 million. The GST is a whopping $98,000. A rebate of 57% leaves the town the responsibility of trying to raise $42,000 just to pay the GST. How many hot dogs will kids have to sell, how many pies will ladies groups have to put on sale, and how many quilts will have to be raffled off just to raise the rest of the GST?

At minimum wage approximately 6,000 volunteer hours will be needed just to pay the remaining federal tax. It is just not fair.

Gazette

[Criminal Code, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for not only presenting the bill to the House but for his fine delivery and the sentiments he carried in his speech.

The unfortunate part is that when members on both sides of the House bring a private member's bill or motion to the House, if it bears enough weight, as does the hon. member's motion, it is mockery in some sense that the people who sit on both sides of the House do not have an opportunity to stand and vote yes or no on a bill such as this.

That is the problem because the hon. member has just delivered as fine a speech as one would want to hear across Canada. We are assured, and I am as sure as I am standing here, that 90% plus would agree with the bill. Why then do people from both sides of the House not have the opportunity to stand and show Canadians how they feel about this issue?

I myself introduced the first reading of a bill similar to this on January 30. It is a private member's bill, an act requiring the national flag of Canada to be flown at half-mast every November 11. If it is a good enough bill to be drawn, it is a good enough bill to be votable.

What will happen to the hon. member's bill now? Yes, one member from each party will discuss it. Then where will it go? What will happen to it? This is a non-votable bill and it will die, but the sentiment of the bill should not go that way.

The Royal Canadian Legion, which I have supported for years and which represents the majority of veterans in Canada, wrote to the justice minister three times over the period of one year. It never received an answer. This issue that my hon. colleague has brought up is a fulfilment in part of what the Royal Canadian Legion has asked over and over again.

The government has said that to make this a law, to make it illegal to desecrate the flag, would run contrary to the charter of rights and freedoms. If our charter of rights and freedoms deny the right to enshrine within the country the protection of the symbol of our flag then maybe we should take a look at the charter of rights and freedoms.

When I was a young lad going to school the flag went up every morning and there was a statement we all made: Emblem of liberty, justice and truth, flag of our country we salute. That was said regularly every day. That does not happen anymore. I remember a poem:

It's only an old piece of bunting It's only an old coloured rag But there are thousands who died for its honour And fell in defence of our flag.

That is the message we should be getting out but it is a non-votable bill.

I will pose one question to help enforce what my colleague opposite has said. Does the government forget our veterans were the ones who fought to ensure we could have a charter of rights and freedoms in the first place? Everyone knows the answer. The answer is that we can pass all kinds of laws that put reasonable limits on our rights and freedoms. For example, the charter limits our ability to hurt one another, to damage other people's property and so on, but why is it that we cannot pass a law which would make it an illegal, criminal offence to desecrate that symbol of Canada?

There is something wrong on both sides of the House when a bill like this does not become a votable item. Some may not have the same feeling toward the flag, but surely everyone will agree that it is the emblem of Canada. Approximately 114,000 Canadians spilled their blood all over this world in honour of that flag, and yet it is not a votable bill. Members should think about that.

When we were leaving Taiwan I commented to one of the Taiwanese chaps who had been with us that I really appreciated their beautiful tiled fences. Wherever I visited in that country I never saw one word of graffiti on any of them. Another chap asked him about freedom of expression. That Taiwanese gentleman said that people could paint their houses and their fences, but could not paint another individual's house or fence or a fence belonging to the government.

Canadians become obsessed with freedom of expression. Recently at the summit here in Ottawa we watched as people not only desecrated the flag but trampled all over the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. We sat idly by with our hands folded and said it was freedom of expression.

I will never forget one thing I learned from an old Welsh professor. He said that whenever we take anything to the extreme we are not sometimes wrong but always wrong. I suggest tonight that those who would not allow the bill to be votable are wrong. We are not sometimes wrong, but always wrong when these kind of bills come before the House and are not votable.

My private member's bill requests that the flag be flown at half-mast. Can we imagine that bill coming to the House for a vote? Can we imagine a member facing his or her constituents at home who would not dare to stand and support it? If my hon. colleague's bill had a free vote in the House, it would pass unanimously, but unfortunately it will go in the dust bin.

In closing I want to quote part of an old patriotic song:

At Queenston Heights and Lundy's Lane, Our brave fathers, side by side, For freedom, homes, and loved ones dear, Firmly stood, and nobly died; And those dear rights which they maintained, We swear to yield them never! Our watchword evermore shall be, The Maple Leaf forever!

I hope that some day we will be able to bring items like this to the House and they will indeed be votable items.

[Veterans Affairs, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we all have an obligation to pay debt: you and I and everybody else.

The government has an obligation. Each week that this obligation of the government is delayed it costs $2 million in interest. My question is simple. Does the government think it can disregard the court's ruling?

[Veterans Affairs, March 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for almost 30 years the government has known and has been warned that it could be held liable for not paying interest on the money being held in trust belonging to physically and mentally incapacitated veterans.

Earlier this week the Ontario court of appeal unanimously ordered the government to pay up. What can be gained by continuing to withhold this money from those who put their lives on the line for Canada?

[Veterans Affairs, March 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the government had a legal obligation to invest or pay interest on the money it managed on behalf of severely disabled veterans. What the government actually did was take money from disabled veterans and use it for its own purposes.

Since the 1970s the minister's own staff, the auditor general, an Ontario superior court and today the Ontario Court of Appeal have all said that the government was wrong to do this.

In the past 30 years the government turned its own mistake costing millions of dollars into a debt today of $1.5 billion. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has a moral and legal responsibility to settle this issue as quickly as possible out of court.

The government pays interest on money it manages in trust for prisoners, but will not pay back the money it owes to our disabled veterans. That is not only shameful, it is despicable as well.

[Point of Order, March 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, prior to September 11 we had already established the ports police. I would like to ask the hon. member, have you heard from any port authority that the new arrangement with city or municipal police is a better arrangement than what they had previously? That question should be answered. I have yet to hear a port claim that existing police services are better than what they had before.