Maurice Vellacott

[Armenian People, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that close to some 700,000 Armenians were killed or died of starvation and disease while being relocated during the first world war in eastern Anatolia. It is also a fact that more than 2 million Turks and Muslims were massacred in eastern Anatolia at the turn of the 20th century and during the first world war by Armenian revolutionary bands acting in co-operation with the Russians who were the Ottoman Empire's enemy.

What happened in eastern Anatolia during the first world war were tragic events from which lessons should be learned, for all of us here today and for the future, so that similar incidents of such ultra-nationalism that result in the total uprooting and devastation of any community around the world is not allowed to occur again.

The world has heard a lot about the Armenian losses due to the tireless efforts of Armenian individuals who in some cases it is sad to say have resorted to terrorism. The Turks recognize the Armenian deaths and they also acknowledge the suffering that took place in eastern Anatolia so many years ago.

What the Turks so strenuously object to is the Armenian activists' one sided portrayal of the tragic events to the world community and labelling them as genocide using in some cases distortion or exaggeration of facts to further their political agenda of obtaining money and land from Turkey. While doing so Armenians ignore the death and massacre of more than twice as many Turks at the hands of the Armenian revolutionary bands and the Russians whom they were helping during the first world war.

The Armenian accusations or allegations were not countered in North America and Europe until the 1980s because there were no significant populations outside Turkey until then. Armenians were unopposed in terms of the viewpoint of history they depicted to the North American public. Therefore others around the world did not have that understanding of another point of view on things.

Now that world opinion is becoming aware of the Armenian massacres of the Turkish and Muslim population, Armenian activists accuse anybody who questions their version of the events as attempting to rewrite history.

No Armenian publication or conference ever mentions the massacres of the Turkish and Muslim population by the Armenian revolutionary bands and terrorist organizations such as Hunchak and Dashnaktsutiun. In the kinds of genocide that Armenians claim, the alleged perpetrators ended up having ironically more dead than the victims, some 2 million Turks and Muslims.

After the first world war the Ottoman capital was under allied occupation and all state archives were under the control of the British authorities in Istanbul. As a result of constant accusations by Armenian individuals the British finally decided to transport more than 140 Ottoman high officials and cabinet members to Malta for a trial; almost like an anticipation of the Nuremberg trials.

The prisoners were held in Malta for 30 months while the British, French and the Americans searched feverishly for evidence. If there were any credible witnesses or evidence regarding the alleged Armenian massacres they should have been found in that period of time.

However, as a matter of fact, no evidence could be found in Paris, Istanbul or Anatolia to support the charge that the Ottomans had planned a mass slaughter of the Armenians. This is not at all to deny that very tragically and even horrifically large numbers of people were killed. I guess some would maybe question, and I am not the one who has a perfect knowledge of this, that it should be called a genocide.

The British high commission was unable to forward any legal evidence to London. There was nothing in the British archives that corroborated the accusations of the Armenians. I guess at the end of the day these individuals had to be released. Even though there had been those with utmost zeal trying to bring it forward, no evidence was produced.

I stand here today saying that we should move on, that we would not necessarily benefit a whole lot by looking back when there is a differing point of view here. Horrific events were perpetrated on the Armenians but also upon the Turks by these Armenian bands. I stand before the House today not having a final, settled, and determined conclusion about the matter. However I want there to be a more serious look at some of the other atrocities that were perpetrated upon the 2 million Turkish people in those days.

I am appealing for some balance in looking at some of the evidence and information. I am not convinced there is a reason and benefit in declaring an Armenian genocide, such that we would benefit in a big way from that in the future.

[Agriculture, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I still have to ask my question.

The government needs to work for Saskatchewan farm families for a change. The legislature has invited them to go there. The wheat board minister is very familiar with that place.

Why will the ministers not go there and talk directly to those people who are so severely affected by the government's abject failures?

[Agriculture, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hardworking families of Saskatchewan need to hear from the government.

Why will the trade minister, the agriculture minister and our own wheat board minister not accept the invitation of the province of Saskatchewan to go there and explain what they are going to do to protect Saskatchewan's farm families?

[Firefighters' Pensions, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would draw to your attention that this has nothing to do with money directly. It would be an issue for the provinces and the municipalities hereafter. It would not be a burden on the public coffers at all. Therefore that would be out of order.

[Firefighters' Pensions, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today from the member for Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey has real merit. The difficulty then, as he sits on this side of the House at this point in the debate, is the fact of asking the government to “consider the advisability”, and therein lies a little bit of a hook, “of increasing the pension accrual rate for firefighters to allow them to retire with adequate financial provisions for their retirement”.

With all due respect to my colleague who has brought forward a very fine motion here, I have said that the government should just get on with it and do the job, never mind “to consider” or to look at increasing it. I have a concern that this will go before the minister and so on, and there will be consideration, delay and stalling, and who knows when finally we will get this kind of thing in place?

Aside from that, and that could be a big one, the purpose of this motion, which is to have the government look into increasing the percentage of income firefighters are allowed to put into their pension plans under the Income Tax Act, is something that has real merit and certainly I would support it.

As has been mentioned here by others before today, members of the International Association of Fire Fighters have been lobbying for this change for a number of years. They have been in our respective offices. They have talked to the minister. Seemingly they have had assurances. Early on maybe he was not very aware of what the concerns were or they were not getting to his attention for some reason or another. Now I think it has his attention. I understand that within the last few months this has received his attention, so thankfully it is at a more advanced stage.

The Income Tax Act currently allows individuals in public safety occupations, such as firefighters, police officers, corrections officers, air traffic controllers and commercial airline pilots, to retire at age 55 without penalty. However, the IAFF is arguing that the current pension rules do not allow firefighters to put away enough money for their pensions for them to retire at age 55 with 70% of their income. The best that can be achieved is roughly 60% of income for their pensions.

Just for a moment here, in relation to our party's policies over a number of years, I want to give some asides with respect to retirement and retirement security.

I think it is important to comment on retirement security. We value retirement security as a vital element of independence. We, the Canadian Alliance Party, have been clear about that, although I know it has been torqued and twisted by others in other directions.

Without question I want it on the record today that if we as a party were in government we would honour obligations under current state run programs for retired Canadians and those close to retirement and would maintain support for low income seniors. We would also provide future retirees with a greater choice between a government managed pension plan and mandatory personal plans. We would also, and I think this is important to say, increase the foreign investment restriction for retirement investments and allow individuals a greater opportunity to save for their own retirement, giving Canadians greater control over their own affairs.

If this motion were to pass, and then there is the big if, and if the government really got serious about getting something through on this, the firefighters would still have to win the extra pension benefits through their collective bargaining benefits negotiating process. Hopefully we are all aware that they have that obstacle or hurdle to overcome at some point. Nevertheless, provincial and municipal governments should be and in fact would be consulted because the extra employer portion will have to come out of their budgets.

However, if this motion passes it opens up the door. If the government is doing more than just playing games on this, if it is actually serious about getting ahead and doing something, not just considering, not just looking, then I think our firefighters, those who are here in the gallery today and others, will have that benefit that they have been pushing hard for.

I think that many members on all sides of the House, in the different respective parties and certainly within the Canadian Alliance Party, would be supportive of that for these hardworking people who are courageous and who lay their lives on the line on behalf of Canadians on a regular basis. I, with many of my colleagues as well no doubt, am supportive of the motion for some very good reasons.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we resume the debate on Bill C-5, I want to clarify where the Canadian Alliance stands with respect to the species at risk act.

The Canadian Alliance is perfectly committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species, let there be no mistake on that, but we do have some major concerns with Bill C-5, as I will lay out and as have other members very capably laid out over the course of this day.

Alliance members do not believe that Bill C-5 would work without guaranteeing fair and reasonable compensation for property owners and resource users who suffer losses. Many of us who have spoken in recent days have farmers and ranchers in our constituencies. Those individuals want to protect endangered species but they should not be forced to do so at the expense of their own livelihoods, and therein comes the rub.

We have insisted all along that criminal liability must require intent. The act in this case would make criminals out of good people who may inadvertently and unknowingly harm endangered species or their habitats. This is unnecessarily very confrontational and makes endangered species a threat to property owners. We need a co-operative approach, not the confrontation that seems to be a part of Bill C-5. We need co-operation with the provinces.

The 1996 national accord for the protection of species at risk was a step in the right direction. It needs to be developed co-operatively. Instead Bill C-5 would give the federal government the power to impose its laws on provincial lands. Since it is left completely at the minister's discretion, landowners do not know if and when the shoe would drop. Instead of working with the provinces and property owners, the federal government seems to be introducing and producing an uncertainty and a climate of resentment and distrust as well.

It appears that the government wants to amend only along certain lines. In effect it is reversing many of the positions taken by its own members of parliament on the environment committee. Unfortunately that is another example of some of the top down control by bureaucrats who wanted to go a particular way on this bill. It also shows a real contempt or disregard for government members across the way and members in the opposition benches here.

The government really has no idea what the costs and the socioeconomic implications of the legislation would be over time. In the minister's information supplement of October 2001, the Minister of the Environment said:

Environment Canada is aware that compensation for restrictions on the use of land is a complex issue that requires careful consideration and innovative thinking. We will need several years of practical experience in implementing the stewardship and recovery provisions of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) before we can be precise in prescribing eligibility and thresholds for compensation.

In speaking to the standing committee on October 3, 2001, the minister explained why he could not guarantee compensation in Bill C-5. He said:

We then got deeper and deeper into this and it became more and more of the proverbial swamp, and more and more difficult to do partly because, of course, governments should not pass legislation which is open-ended in terms of funding. We have fiscal responsibilities which, as you can well imagine, are fairly strict on us. Forty-five million a year is what we're given to run the process and that's what we can expect and that's it.

Any fair-minded person, in hearing that kind of a statement, and those hearing it today, would understand that to be a red flag. Is it not essential that the costs on industry, on property users and the cost on government in terms of enforcement resources be known by the government before it introduces legislation with such far reaching implications?

In particular, we want to know and have a little more close approximation of what the bill would cost farmers, loggers, fishermen, ranchers and so on. We want to know what the government's compensation costs would be as well. Without that information, individuals cannot plan and government does not know what costs are being passed on.

The Canadian Alliance proposed a motion in a previous group, Motion No. 15, which read:

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 is very important. It is closely related to socioeconomic interests because it requires that a balance be struck between the environmental goals and the needs of the taxpayer. Without considering this important aspect of sustainable development, environmental laws could quickly kill the goose that lays the golden egg, so to speak.

Worrying about endangered species is only something that prosperous economies can afford to do because someone must pay for it. Economic desperation will be no friend to species at risk so we must put that forward.

The species at risk working group was made up of representatives from a broad range of environmental and industry groups, among them the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and the Mining Association of Canada. When they appeared before the House standing committee in September 2000 they said the purpose of the act should be pursued to the extent possible while taking into account the social and economic interests of Canadians. That is a reasonable amendment that should be accepted by the House.

We put forward another motion which would require socioeconomic interests to be considered in the legal listing of species. The bill would already provide that it be considered in developing recovery measures.

Another great concern is the minister's wide discretionary powers. It can be a pretty scary thing. The minister could decide whether compensation should be given or not. He would have the power to decide how much compensation would be paid. The minister would decide whether provincial laws were effective or not and whether the federal government would step in to impose the law.

Those are the kind of wide powers that the minister would have. That kind of discretion is the opposite of transparency. On this very day on Parliament Hill there are a number of real estate agents. Various members have met with them through the course of the day. They have expressed to me personally the major concern they have about these wide discretionary powers granted to the minister in this particular bill.

The government has refused to provide any proper draft legislation about the process for compensation, who would qualify and how much one would receive? Those are pretty critical and essential points.

Where is the technical amendment which would provide a predictable process for property owners to seek compensation? The all party committee of the House said the minister must draft regulations but the government seems to want to stay away from that obligation. Where is the technical amendment which would set out the criteria that the minister would use to determine whether a provincial law would be effective or not? Again, the committee rightly put some criteria into the bill but the government wants to take that out as well.

The process for action plans and recovery plans needs to be transparent and so must the process in other areas as well.

Farmers, ranchers and other such people can be of real help to us. They can be our best allies in respect to a bill like this. Providing incentives for habitat protection by promoting good management practices is a good thing. The Canadian Alliance supports stewardship and incentives for protecting habitat. We believe that farmers and ranchers are some of the best conservationists and that their stewardship initiatives must be acknowledged and encouraged.

I know I speak for a wide variety of people, but certainly for those in my own constituency of Saskatoon--Wanuskewin, when I say that farmers understand the importance of maintaining a healthy environment. Farmers, ranchers and agricultural people are primary stakeholders and as such their rights must be respected in the bill before us today.

We believe there should be protection. We should preserve Canada's natural environment and endangered species as well as the sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for the use of current and future generations.

There are major concerns about the bill. It does not measure up. We are vigorously opposed to Bill C-5 in its current form. We will rue the day because of some of the implications, amplifications and fallout from the bill. Therefore we stand opposed to Bill C-5.

[Dairy Terms Act, April 15th, 2002]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-440, an act respecting the use of dairy terms.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to introduce this dairy terms act bill today and for my hon. colleague from Provencher to second it.

Dairy terms are popular for labelling food items because of the reputation dairy products have among consumers for quality and nutrition. Consumers looking for a dairy product could unintentionally buy a non-dairy alternative due to the misuse of dairy terms in the label, and that has happened.

On the other hand, for example, consumers who are lactose intolerant and looking for a non-dairy alternative, may mistakenly overlook the necessary substitute product.

Producers can lose market share because of inaccurate or misleading labels.

Consumers are entitled to a properly informed choice in the matter of dairy products and non-dairy alternatives. Each year Canadian dairy producers spend over $75 million on advertising dairy products and promoting the nutritional benefits of dairy products.

I believe this dairy term act would improve the existing federal regulatory structure by providing much needed clarity to the rules surrounding the use of dairy terms and food labels and by forbidding dairy terms to be used in a misleading manner.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will clarify where the Canadian Alliance stands in respect to Bill C-5, the species at risk bill. The Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species, let there be no mistake on that.

Alliance members do not believe Bill C-5 would work without guaranteeing fair and reasonable compensation for property owners and resource users who suffer losses. We have farmers and ranchers in our constituencies. These individuals want to protect endangered species, but they should not be forced to do so at the expense of their own livelihood.

We have insisted along the way that criminal liability must require intent. The act in this case would make criminals out of good people who may inadvertently and unknowingly harm endangered species or their habitat. This is unnecessarily confrontational and makes endangered species a threat to property owners. We need of a co-operative approach, not the confrontation that seems to be a part of Bill C-5. We need co-operation with the provinces.

The 1996 national accord for the protection of species at risk was a step in the right direction. It needs to be developed co-operatively. Instead, Bill C-5 would give the federal government the power to impose its laws on provincial lands. Since it is left completely at the minister's discretion landowners do not know if and when the shoe would drop. Instead of working with the provinces and property owners the federal government seems to be producing uncertainty and a climate of resentment and distrust as well.

The government wants to amend along certain lines only. In effect it is reversing many of the positions taken by Liberal MPs on the environment committee. Unfortunately that is another example of some top down control of bureaucrats who wanted a particular way. It shows a contempt or a disregard for government members and members across the way in the opposition benches as well.

The government has no idea what the socioeconomic implications of the legislation are and what the costs would be over time. In the minister's information supplement of October 2001 the Minister of the Environment said:

Environment Canada is aware that compensation for restrictions on the use of land is a complex issue that requires careful consideration and innovative thinking. We will need several years of practical experience in implementing the stewardship and recovery provisions of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) before we can be precise in prescribing eligibility and thresholds for compensation.

In speaking to the standing committee on October 3, 2001, the minister explained why he could not guarantee compensation in Bill C-5. He said:

We then got deeper and deeper into this and it became more and more of the proverbial swamp, and more and more difficult to do partly because, of course, governments should not pass legislation which is open-ended in terms of funding. We have fiscal responsibilities which, as you can well imagine, are fairly strict on us. Forty-five million a year is what we've given to run the process and that's what we can expect and that's it.

Any fair minded person in hearing this today would understand that would be a red flag. Is it not essential that the costs on industry and property users, the cost on government in terms of enforcement resources, be known before the government introduces legislation with such far reaching implications?

In particular, we want to know and have a little more close approximation of what the bill would cost farmers, fishermen, loggers, ranchers and so on. We want to know what the government's compensation costs would be as well. Without that information individuals cannot plan and government does not know what costs are being passed on.

The Canadian Alliance proposes in Motion No. 15 that:

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 is very important. That is closely related to socioeconomic interest because it requires that a balance be struck between the environmental goals and the needs of the taxpayer. Without considering this important aspect of sustainable development environmental laws could quickly become the goose that lays the golden egg so to speak.

Worrying about endangered species is only something that prosperous economies can afford to do because someone must pay for it. Economic desperation will be no friend to species at risk so we must put that forward.

The species at risk working group was made up of representatives from a broad range of environmental and industry groups among them the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and the Mining Association of Canada. When they appeared before the House standing committee in September 2000 they said the purpose of the act should be pursued to the extent possible while taking into account the social and economic interests of Canadians. That is a reasonable amendment that should be accepted by the House.

We put forward Motion No. 3 which would require socioeconomic interests to be considered in the legal listing of species. The bill would already provide that it be considered in developing recovery measures.

Another great concern is the minister's discretionary power, and that can be a scary thing. The minister can decide whether compensation would be given or not. He would have the power to decide how much compensation would be paid. The minister would decide whether provincial laws are effective or not and whether the federal government would step in to impose the law. That is the kind of wide powers the minister would have and that kind of discretion is the opposite of transparency.

The government has refused to provide any proper draft legislation about the process for compensation, who would qualify and how much one would receive. Those are pretty critical and essential points.

Where is the technical amendment which would provide a predictable process for property owners to seek compensation? The all party committee of the House said that the minister must draft regulations but the government wants to stay away from that obligation. Where is the technical amendment which would set out the criteria the minister would use to determine whether a province's laws would be effective or not? The committee put some criteria into the bill, but the government wants to take that out as well.

The process for action plans and recovery plans needs to be transparent and so must the process in other areas as well.

I find most distressing the fact that farmers and ranchers and those kind of people can be some of our best allies. Providing incentives for habitat protection by promoting good management practices is a good thing. The Canadian Alliance supports stewardship and incentives for protecting habitat. We strongly believe that farmers and ranchers are some of the best conservationists. Their stewardship initiatives must be acknowledged and encouraged.

I speak for farmers in my constituency of Saskatoon--Wanuskewin when I say that farmers understand the importance of maintaining a healthy environment. Farmers, ranchers and agricultural people are primary stakeholders and as such their rights need to be respected in the bill before us today.

There is no myth, confusion or misinformation about Canadian Alliance policy. We are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's national environment and endangered species as well as the sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for the use of current and future generations.

The Canadian Alliance maintains that for any endangered species legislation to be effective it must respect the fundamental rights of private property owners. We believe that co-operating with land owners and resource users, the environmental frontline soldiers, is critical to the success of protecting endangered species. Full co-operation means full compensation and that is only fair and just support. Full compensation provisions must be clearly spelled out in the bill and the regulations. Land owners and resource workers across this country are hurting and cannot take any more economic hardship from the federal government.

Politicians should have some say on the legal listing of species but the public needs to be able to review and comment on it. We have concerns about criminal liability and moving so quickly on people. We need to have that better defined. For these and a number of other reasons we unfortunately will not be able to support the bill.

Bill C-5 does not measure up, as we would say, and therefore the Canadian Alliance is vigorously opposed to Bill C-5 in its current form. We unfortunately cannot support it because we believe that some day we will rue the day because of the implications and the fallout from this particular bill.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-15B is of considerable interest to me and others because of how it directly impacts on individuals in our respective ridings, particularly those in the agricultural areas of Canada.

When we look at a bill like this one we have to understand where some people are trying to take it. As my colleague and others have mentioned today I do not think any of us have a problem. In fact we are staunch supporters of bills that protect animals in the right and appropriate way from the kind of cruelty we have seen reported in newspapers, on television and so on. People have performed some horrific and sadistic acts against animals. Of course we want to protect them from that kind of horrible cruelty.

We all realize that in our respective ridings there are wonderful constituents who have animals as pets, be they cats, dogs or horses. They spend a great deal of time and attention caring for these animals. For individuals who do not have other close companionships animals may be the greatest enjoyment in their lives. We appreciate and acknowledge that.

There is a certain therapy in many senior citizens homes these days involving animals. I quite agree with its benefits. I have worked as an orderly in health care settings in the past and have done chaplaincy work in those settings too. As people get along in years their eyes light up when cats or dogs are brought in. They are wonderfully pleased to see them. Perhaps they go back in their minds to their childhood years when they had a cat, a dog or whatever.

This therapy add something considerable to their lives, even if only for a few hours or if they have pets on a long term, more permanent basis. None of us can deny the fact that animals bring us a great deal of enjoyment. They can be man's best friend in the sense that they help, protect and are loyal.

I will read some quotes from the In Defence of Animals campaign on its website. My express purpose in flagging them for all of us and for the viewing audience is to understand the motivation for the legislation before us today and perhaps even take it further.

According to this IDA, In Defence of Animals, website its campaign proposes nothing less than to change society's relationship with animals. That is a very grandiose desire and motivation. Many quotations have been submitted by various individuals across North America. I want to read some of them because I think they will be helpful to reinforce and understand where some people are trying to drive this issue. We see it partly reflected in the legislation before us. It is fundamental to understand the animal rights agenda. I think members will get the picture very quickly.

Here is an article from Lynn Manheim, a columnist with Letters for Animals. He says:

Ultimately there can be no real progress until society undergoes a paradigm shift, a new way of looking at the world which opens the door to new systems of interacting with it. As we have seen most strikingly with the women's movement, language plays an essential part in such a shift. Establishing legal rights for animals will be virtually impossible while they continue to be called, and thought of, as “its” and “things”.

He definitely wants change. I would like to read another article from the president of The Elephant Alliance. She says:

From its inception, the Elephant Alliance has advanced the idea that elephant captivity and servitude, like slavery, must end. We thank and commend In Defence of Animals for initiating this important and necessary campaign, for truly, they are not our property, and we are not their owners.

Here is another article from the director of Project Zero, Ed Duvin:

This campaign is a vital systemic approach to elevate the legal standing...of animals. Changing our present oppressive language is a crucial first step in altering attitudes and expanding the concept of family. By working at the roots of injustice instead of the symptoms, we hasten the day when a new ethic is achieved for all beings--human and non-human alike.

Here is another one by an individual who wrote a book called The Compassion of Animals. He says that a particular campaign:

--will prod us along in our moral evolution. Just as we moved beyond “owning” people after the Civil War, we now need to move beyond “owning” animals, who deserve a far greater understanding in our society than simply being treated as property and things.

A lawyer wrote:

--as an attorney it is all too obvious to me...the true legal protection of animals. Codifying the language and concepts of animal guardianship will help to usher in the day when our laws reflect our society's feelings that companion animals are members of our families.

Jane Goodall of the Jane Goodall Institute took it quite a distance when she wrote:

In the legal sense, animals are regarded as “things”, mere objects that can be bought, sold, discarded, or destroyed at an owner's whim. Only when animals can be regarded as “persons” in the eyes of the law will it be possible to give teeth to the often-fuzzy laws protecting animals from abuse.

Another author, Stephanie Laland, in Peaceful Kingdom: Random Acts of Kindness By Animals wrote:

I looked up the word “property” in the dictionary. It said “a thing or things owned”. To me, this makes it clear that, by definition, animals can never be considered property. A “thing” cannot love. A “thing” cannot act from compassion. A “thing” will never risk its own life to help a stranger or even a friend.

Another says:

Animals are not things, but beings who share our planet and our lives. We should acknowledge the kinship and call them by name friends and companions. We support In Defence of Animals' campaign.

The House will probably get my drift pretty quickly. It is taking it up to some different levels when animals are actually being called persons. There is something wrong about that philosophically and theologically. We are the proper stewards of animals, things on this earth and so on, but to be reviewing it in this way is quite wrong, getting it a bit skewed and way out of joint.

Here is one from the president of the Action for Animals Network who says:

The animal rights philosophy holds that animals are not property, but are individuals with needs and interests of their own. By including animals into our system of ethics, we remove the argument that animals are things, that they are ours to dominate and use as we see fit. When we see them as individuals in their own right, we strengthen the moral foundation of our society.

An another says:

It's up to us to demonstrate through action and words, that companion animals are much more than mere property. They are our friends, partners, or companions and we are their guardians, advocates and protectors.

Another reads:

Best Friends Animal Sanctuary is fully in support of your campaign to secure a change in the legal status of animals. People of other genders, races, and even age groups, were once treated as property in this country. Now, it is time for “people” of other species to be accorded the same simple dignity of being recognized, not as someone else's property, but as beings in their own right.

Although there are numerous other ones I could quote, let me conclude with:

As we move into a new millennium, we are seeking a day when animals are treated as sentient beings with rights. As an organization dealing with companion animals, food-production animals, and exotic animals, we are pleased to become part of this important campaign.

We could go on at length quoting different others that have a rather elevated status of an animal, putting them at the same level, ranking and status as human beings. That is where some of these people want to drive this issue. They very clearly acknowledge that in some Internet forums.

The stated purpose of the bill to amend the criminal code appears good on the surface but actually there are some real kickers. Obviously the Canadian Alliance Party has long disagreed with the Firearms Act. We believe that the definition of animal is far too broad and that it will mean different things to different individuals, particularly farmers and others who work with animals as their means of livelihood. It will bring them under the prosecution of the law. Despite the assurances of the minister to the contrary we think it will be of great harm in that regard. Basically it is quite important to understand where people are appearing to head with this issue.

Therefore some of the amendments that my colleagues and others from various parties have proposed would very be sensible ones, I think, to rein this in, to back it off, and to provide the kinds of curbs and safeguards that we are asking for and that we think are only right for our society.

[Aboriginal Affairs, December 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is no limit on the ways the Liberal government has failed aboriginal people. One of its more creative ways is by failing to monitor prescription drug use among aboriginals, and the result has been drug addiction and death.

Let no one say that this problem has taken us by surprise. We have known about it since 1997 when the auditor general explained it in detail. Let no one say that the solution is a mystery. Hard data prove that sharing information on drug use among doctors and pharmacists reduces the abuse of the system, but sadly let no one say that the Liberals are serious about fixing the problem.

They refuse to make the statutory changes necessary to allow information sharing on prescription drug use. Instead the Liberals expect addicts to volunteer their consent to have their drug information shared, but addicts who are double doctoring of course will not consent to getting caught.

Is this the best that the Liberals offer to aboriginal people? Surely first nations individuals deserve much better. Lorraine Stonechild in the parliamentary committee said “We can't keep letting first nations people die over this carelessness of the government. All information should be shared so it doesn't continue. I'm asking, please make these changes soon. I don't want to see any more people die”.