Garry Breitkreuz

[Criminal Code, November 14th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I refer again to the main point I was making in my speech. Bill S-24 would be much preferable to the present bill. I would like to read a bit more of this legal brief rather than give my opinion and the question the member has asked will be answered.

These concerns are met by the provisions of Bill S-24 in s. 445.1(1)(a), namely, “Everyone commits an offence who wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird”. This offence extends to activities which do not result in the death of an animal, and to those which do.

The second point made in the Lang Michener letter is:

The phrase “regardless of whether the animal dies immediately” in s. 182.2(1)(b) prevents any participant in recreational hunting or fishing charged under this section from making the argument that because the death of an animal is immediate the death should not be considered to be brutal or vicious. Depending on the circumstances of the case before the court, such an argument may or may not succeed but it is not reasonable to prevent an accused from making this argument. Immediate death is a widely accepted definition of humane killing and this section attempts to change this standard. It is a commonly held view that it is more humane to kill an animal promptly and exactly than to allow an animal to suffer for a long period of time. In R. v. Jones, the judge found that it was more humane to kill an animal quickly and cleanly than to allow it to suffer a prolonged death.

I want to get to point three, which goes beyond what the member has asked. This is a very important part of this legal brief. It reads:

If Bill C-50 becomes law, animal rights groups will harass and prosecute anglers and hunters. Liz White, a director of the Animal Alliance of Canada, one of Canada's major animal rights organizations, stated:

“The onus is on humane societies and other groups on the front lines to push this legislation to the limit, to test the parameters of this law and have the courage and conviction to lay charges. That's what this is all about. Make no mistake about it”.

In the second reading of Bill S-24, Senator Bryden quotes Dr. Bessie Borwein, Special Advisor to the Vice-President of Research at the University of Western Ontario:

“There are animal rights groups in Canada that have specifically and publicly stated their intention to use Bill C-10 [previous versions of Bill C-22 and Bill C-50] to further their agenda. They say they will use the law to press charges and to test it to the utmost. They will use peace officers or authorized organizations like the SPCA or humane societies sympathetic to their cause in order to press this...”.

That is where I rest my case and that is why we oppose the legislation. Unless amendments are made to protect these traditional hunting and fishing activities I cannot accept what the members opposite are telling me.

[Criminal Code, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I as well am very pleased to participate in the debate of Bill C-50. Over the summer I received many complaints about Bill C-50. I am glad I have a chance to share these concerns with my fellow MPs before the bill goes to committee for further work.

The government has been at this since December 1999. We have had this bill around in one form or another for the last six years. We have seen Bills C-17, C-15, C-15B, C-10, C-10B and C-22. Now it is called Bill C-50 and the Liberals still do not have it right.

I am going to be giving members some legal opinions rather than just discussing some of my own opinions. I am going to read into the record a brief from a lawyer. Before I do that, I want to make a couple of personal observations about the bill based on my own experience on this issue.

Our young people really need to experience our natural created environment. Fishing is a wholesome sport that makes our young men and women appreciate the world around them. This is not something only for our aboriginal people. Getting close to nature is a very healthy, therapeutic experience that has no substitute. It is a wholesome alternative to some of the activities our youth can get involved in and that lead to serious problems for them and society. We should be encouraging more outdoor activities that bring us closer to the created world. As it stands, Bill C-50 would discourage some of the activities that our young people could engage in to appreciate the world around us, activities such as hunting and fishing.

I would like to see hunting and fishing promoted. That would do more to preserve the environment than any big government program or course of study at some educational institution. Participating in activities like hunting and fishing provides an incentive to maintain a healthy, natural environment. That is why we need to make an amendment to proposed paragraph 182.2(1)(b). Without an amendment, we will discourage many of youth from getting out into the great outdoors. We will also discourage people who normally would want to preserve the environment from doing so.

Those are the two personal notes I wanted to add for members before I get into the legal critique of the bill.

I am going to read into the record a letter written by Mr. Peter R. Hayden, Q.C., of the Lang Michener law firm. This legal opinion was prepared on behalf of the following organizations: the British Columbia Wildlife Federation. the Alberta Fish and Game Association, the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, the Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters, the Fédération québécoise de la faune, the New Brunswick Wildlife Federation, the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers & Hunters, the Canadian sport fishing industry and the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunition Association.

This letter from the Lang Michener firm was written to our Minister of Justice, the Attorney General of Canada, here in Ottawa. It states:

We wish to register our strong support for the swift passage of Bill S-24 introduced by Liberal Senator John Bryden and to state our opposition to the passage of Bill C-50.

Bill S-24 accomplishes the Government's primary objective in the reform of animal cruelty provisions, namely increasing the maximum penalties for existing offences of animal cruelty, as is done in Bill C-50. We object to the balance of Bill C-50 because, as Senator Bryden says of Bill C-22 and Bill C-50, they would substantively change the law of animal cruelty, and negatively impact “Canadians who hunt and fish lawfully”.

Specifically, we object to s. 182.2(1)(b), which, for the first time in Canadian history, makes it an offence to kill an animal brutally or viciously without defining those terms and does not exempt from this offence normal hunting and fishing. This new offence will be used by animal rights activists who will employ provisions of the Criminal Code to bring private prosecutions to harass lawful anglers and hunters.

For the reasons cited below, the oft-cited defences of legal justification, excuse, and colour of right in the Criminal Code would not be of much assistance to an angler or hunter charged under Bill C-50.

While you and your Department have said that the offence of cruelty to animals is not intended to forbid conduct that is socially acceptable or authorized by law, such as hunting and fishing, Bill C-50 will have the ultimate effect of intimidating anglers and hunters who will be discouraged from participating in the outdoor heritage activities of hunting and fishing for the fear of prosecution.

This legal brief continues under the title “Support of Bill S-24”. It states:

According to the Department of Justice, the primary objective in revising the Criminal Code's animal cruelty sections is to enable the courts to impose longer sentences commensurate with the severity of the animal cruelty offences. Bill S-24 achieves the goal of increasing penalties that may be imposed in cases of animal cruelty and allows the Crown to proceed either summarily or by indictment to achieve a result suitable to the crime committed. Bill S-24 also retains many current sections and offences under the Criminal Code, which has the additional advantage of leading to certainty of interpretation of these sections owing to the well established body of decided cases on the current animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code.

The next subtitle is “Anglers and Hunters Do Not Support Bill C-50”, under which it is stated:

The Associations on whose behalf we are writing to you do not support Bill C-50. We understand that you received a letter dated November 22, 2004 (the “Coalition letter”) purporting to be from all of Canada's animal-based sectors, which outlines the group's position of support for the “swift passage” of certain amendments to the Criminal Code “as rapidly as possible”, namely the proposed animal cruelty provisions as contained in Bill C-22 which are the same as Bill C-50, with the exception of the provision for the protection of existing aboriginal or treaty rights in s. 182.6.

The Coalition letter did not in any way represent the interests of Canadian anglers and hunters. We note that these Coalition members have since sent a letter to Senator Bryden joining the Associations in registering their full support of Bill S-24 and their support of the rationale presented by Senator Bryden in moving second reading of Bill S-24.

The next subtitle is “Problems with Bill C-50”, under which it is stated:

We have serious concerns about Bill C-50 and we have set out below what these concerns are.

The Department of Justice has clarified that beyond increasing penalties for existing animal cruelty offences, the objective of Bill C-22, and accordingly Bill C-50, is to “simplify, modernize and fill gaps in the offence structure of the animal cruelty regime”. As Senator Bryden says, the changes to animal cruelty law in Bill C-22 and Bill C-50, other than the increasing of penalties, amount to significant changes to the law which should require very careful and open debate.

Let me emphasize that phrase: “significant changes to the law”. I would also like to read for members a quote from a footnote in this letter, referring to Liberal Senator John Bryden speaking in the Senate:

[T]hese housekeeping amendments went further than modernizing language and simplifying the law. Arguably, they would be substantively changing the law....If there is a consensus that the law on cruelty to animals needs reforming, then let us have that debate, but let us do so honestly, openly and in a transparent manner, engaging the Canadian public and parliamentarians as these important issues require.

Let me continue with the Lang Michener letter to the justice minister:

To that end, we would like to set out our serious objections to Bill C-50, other than the increasing of penalties, on behalf of the Associations.

1. S. 182.2(1)(b) makes it an offence to kill animals brutally and viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately.

Hunting and fishing necessarily involve the killing of animals. Animal rights groups consistently attempt to portray these traditional Canadian heritage activities as inherently brutal and vicious. Under Bill C-50, a hunter or angler may be prosecuted and convicted of the offence of killing an animal brutally or viciously for engaging in normal hunting and fishing practices.

The killing of animals simpliciter has never been the activity the legislature intended to prevent. The killing of animals is a necessary result of most animal use industries and of hunting and fishing. Canadians' concerns regarding animal cruelty do not relate to the act of killing animals--

[Question No. 176, November 14th, 2005]

For each province and territory: ( a ) how many RCMP officers are currently serving under federal responsibilities, provincial responsibilities, and municipal responsibilities; ( b ) what is the current number of unfulfilled requests for RCMP officers from provinces and municipalities; and (c) how many RCMP officers are currently needed to bring the RCMP up to full strength?

(Return tabled)

[Aboriginal Affairs, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Quewezance, the former chief, was president of the St. Phillip's Rangers hockey team when it received repeated direct transfers from the school account. He knew what was going on and the Liberals recruited him to run as their candidate in 2004 while failing to investigate complaints made to Indian affairs about this matter in 2002.

The Liberals have hit a new low in stealing money from schoolchildren while protecting one of their own from investigation. Is this the new standard of ethics the Prime Minister promised us in 2004: nominating candidates who steal money from schoolchildren and then covering it up?

[Question No. 178, November 3rd, 2005]

With regard to the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness on June 16, 2005, that “since December 1, 1998, more than 13,500 individual firearm licences have been refused or revoked. The program is accessed over 2,000 times a day by front line police officers”: ( a ) how many of the firearms licences were refused or revoked because the person had committed criminal offences, were placed under prohibition orders, restraining orders, bail conditions, and/or committed other violent acts that were reported to police; ( b ) how many firearms licences were refused or revoked because of the information provided by the applicant on the licence application; ( c ) how does the program track the addresses of these 13,500 now too-dangerous-to-own-firearms persons once their firearms licences have been refused or revoked; ( d ) how does the Minister know that the program is actually being accessed by “front line police officers”; ( e ) what specific types of information in the system are actually being accessed and accessed most often by police; and ( f ) how many times per day do the police actually get information from the system compared to not-in-the-system responses?

[Question No. 177, November 3rd, 2005]

Since 1995, with regard to the Restricted Weapons Registration System, the Canadian Firearms Registry and the Canadian Firearms Information System: ( a ) how many successful firearms traces have been performed; ( b ) how many successful firearms traces linked crime scenes to the accused; and ( c ) how many of the registered owners of these firearms were charged for the crime committed with their firearm and/or for knowingly providing the firearm used in the crime?

[Agriculture, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Vegreville--Wainwright for raising an issue that is important to many agriculture producers in various parts of Canada, especially the Prairies.

The government has been very unresponsive to the problems that it created back in 1993. These problems may appear to affect a small group of people, but they are significant and affect the bottom line of farmers at a time when they are struggling against many other forces as well. The government always wants to deal with big programs and address huge problems, but here we have concerns by a large number of people who the government may regard as only 1% of the population, but it is a problem we must address.

I want to make a few comments about the previous speakers who have gone before and point out that what they are saying is factually incorrect. This is not a danger to human life and it is not a significant risk to the environment.

The government's own Pest Management Regulatory Agency has said that it is not a risk to the environment and it is not a significant risk to other birds of prey or other animals. If we look at this objectively, it in fact prevents pain and suffering for animals such as cattle and horses that break their legs stepping in gopher holes. The report also says it is not a risk to groundwater supplies.

I notice members make their speeches and then run out, but I hope they will read Hansard and some of the things that I will be saying in my speech.

Presently there are no alternatives. Other supplies that are being given and made available do not work and the government has not proposed any alternative. There is no viable alternative at the present time.

My colleague's Motion No. 253, for those who have been watching on television, says:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should make available directly to farmers the 2% strychnine solution.

Let me give a little background, so people watching this will understand. Back in 1993, farmers were denied the use of liquid strychnine to control the growing population of gophers by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. It was decided that ready to use bait containing 0.4% strychnine would be the option available to farmers, and the reports indicate that it is totally ineffective and essentially too weak to do anything.

Gophers have become a plague in some areas, wreaking havoc on farmland and the environment. Many people have said they are concerned about the environment. Here we have something that is really having a very negative effect on the environment.

My colleague from Vegreville--Wainwright needs to be complimented because he has been working on this for quite some time and has not had an opportunity to have this voted upon. I am glad that we have this now and I am hoping members will read the record here, so that they will have their facts straight before they vote on this.

The damage that is done to crop, pasture and range land is in the neighbourhood of $200 million in some years. That is a very significant amount and it is a cost that farmers cannot afford. What they are asking is that the 2% liquid be allowed for use by them, that they can mix it themselves and not have to get it from Toronto or some other place. There is really no valid reason for the government to have removed this effective tool from farmers in the first place.

I want to now focus on the PMRA report. This is the government's regulatory agency. The summation of this report is that there is no good reason for not allowing farmers to use this particular solution to control pests that really have no other way of being controlled.

The PMRA, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which is a federal government agency, is responsible for registering pesticides. It stated that it had some concerns about the use of strychnine baits to control Richardson's ground squirrels, or gophers. However, a careful look at its evaluation document shows that these concerns are limited, specific, and can be easily managed by western farmers. That is the bottom line. Members should read the whole report.

There are several positive points that are made in this PMRA report. It includes:

Producers and the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan consider Richardson’s ground squirrels to be the major mammalian pest impacting croplands, pastures and rangelands over the past several decades, for which the control option of choice has remained strychnine-treated food baits.

It goes on to say there is “the lack of practical alternatives at this time”, so “it is proposed that the use of strychnine to control ground squirrels be maintained for the short term”.

This report gives no reason for not returning to the 2% liquid strychnine for farmers to use except possibly in certain limited settings, such as areas where there are burrowing owls and the swift fox. Even in these areas, studies must be done quickly to determine whether the proper use of the 2% solution, or 0.4% when mixed with grain, has any negative impact on these endangered species. We are as determined as anybody to protect these endangered species and the environment.

One of the previous speakers said this was a risk to humans. This is not. If members read the report, it makes it clear this is not a risk to people. Neither is it a risk to other species of animals. Environmental assessment says there is no danger of movement in the soil. It will be persistent in the soil unless “specialized microbial populations are present”.

Somebody said previously that this was a risk to groundwater. It makes it absolutely clear in the report that it is not a risk in this area. The report says, “it is unlikely that aquatic organisms will be exposed to substantial quantities of strychnine”.

I wish I could go into more of the report, but I think members get the drift. A study in Saskatchewan, my home province, found three key things that I want to mention at this point.

First, freshly mixed bait is more effective than premixed bait. But only the premixed bait is being made available to farmers. This is a strong argument for a return to the 2% liquid which farmers themselves can mix.

Another point that the Saskatchewan report discusses is that there is a potential for non-target poisoning, but there was no actual evidence of this. Previous speakers have claimed that there is. There is not. If there is a limited non-target damage, is this acceptable? No. And if there is, it would possibly be with mice.

Any possible impact on scavengers was not determined. There was in fact, and listen carefully, no evidence of harm to birds of prey. Many people have made the claim that there is. There is not. The use of strychnine was deemed to be safe for use on northern pocket gophers, pigeons, skunks, et cetera.

There has been no attempt to measure the costs to farmers in terms of damage to crops, pastures and rangelands, and the high cost of purchasing the premix solution and of the labour costs of this ineffective premix.

I see no good reason for not supporting this motion. I think that we need to take a close look at this. This affects a significant number of people across the Prairies. Farmers are watching this debate today. They would like to be here themselves to tell the government how desperately they need this 2% liquid strychnine solution to control the gopher population.

The government has done nothing in the last 12 years. As a result, we as the Conservative Party and my colleague from Vegreville—Wainwright and farmers across Canada are trying to put pressure on the current government to do something. Until November 24, everyone who had lost crops and livestock, and suffered equipment and property damage can submit their briefs to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency here in Ottawa. They can get the address from my colleague. They should tell the government the damage that has been caused by gophers and the fact that they want to have this restriction removed from them.

I appreciate having the time to address this issue. I am hoping that people will have open minds on this and support my constituents.

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one comment on the point the Liberal member opposite made about there being no administration costs and that they piggy-back on present programs.

One of the big complaints I get in my riding is that it costs more to have someone evaluate a plan to fix people's homes and make them energy efficient than they get in a grant from the government. However the government does not count that as an administration cost and yet that is a hoop and hurdle that has to be jumped through in order to access that money.

In the U.S., 27% of the cost of fuel is tax and in Canada it is 42%. Does that imbalance in taxes not affect the ability of our agricultural producers to compete in the international marketplace? When we have to pay so much more tax than our competitors, does that not affect our economy?

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in reply to my question a program for some $500 million. My question is to the member is simple. How much of that is administration costs? I have seen too many government programs that are out of line when it comes to administration costs.

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, what the member has just said about income trusts flies in the face of what leading economists have told us, but that is not the reason for my rising at this point. I want to point out to the member that Bill C-66 could be much better.

The flavour of the day today, the talk among a lot of people, has been the Gomery commission and the recommendations that Gomery has made. One of the key things that he pointed out and the problem he detected is that programs were designed with political motives, and here we have an example of just that.

The people who need the help the most, those who are experiencing high energy costs, are not going to see a benefit from this bill. Why can we not reduce taxes for everyone affected? That would ensure that we do not have another fiasco waiting to unfold, a huge bureaucratic mess here.

Liberals seem to always devise programs that cost a lot to administer, that are complex rather than simple. I see this very clearly in the agriculture programs that I have to deal with on a daily basis in my riding office.

I want to point out one fact. The government has profited more than the oil companies from the recent spike in fuel prices on a per litre basis. Sometimes it wants to hide this fact. Bill C-66 comes just before an election and it really flies in the face of what Gomery said should happen. The programs are politically motivated.

I want to make one other comment. Today we have stumbled over a very obvious thing in the sponsorship scandal, and that is that the present Prime Minister was the finance minister. He says that there is still $49 million missing. If he was the finance minister, it was his responsibility to know about that and to find that money. He should be working on that, not passing that responsibility off. I cannot understand how a government in charge of the public purse does not know where the money went. Those in charge of the public purse have a responsibility to administer it appropriately.

Here we have a program being put in place that attempts to redistribute income to a small portion of Canadians rather than help all those who really need it in creating jobs. The government has reaped huge benefits from the increase in fuel prices. Why not give that money back in the way of tax cuts?