Bill C-15 (Historical)

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other Acts

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today on Bill C-15B, the legislation dealing with animal cruelty and amendments to the Firearms Act.

I will not get into much detail on the firearms registry other than to say that gun control and the registry are two absolutely different things.

The citizens of this country realize that this registry has been one of the greatest boondoggles we have ever seen in the history of law enforcement. The government has dumped $700 million down the toilet for no apparent public safety purpose. In fact it continues to spend $100 million a year to prosecute duck hunters, farmers and others.

My colleague who just spoke indicated that there are offences occurring in respect of sawed off shotguns. Sawed off shotguns are prohibited. We cannot register sawed off shotguns. The things he said have nothing to do with reality. The only reality that we have seen with this gun registry is to strip frontline police officers of the resources that they need to fight crime effectively.

We on our side will continue to oppose this registry that takes resources away from our frontline police officers and gives jobs to bureaucrats. There is nothing wrong with bureaucrats, I was one for many years, but let us put bureaucrats to good use. I am sure they do not want to be sitting there spending taxpayers money for no apparent valid purpose.

Moving on from the firearms amendments, the most contentious aspects of the bill concern the proposed changes to the animal cruelty sections of the criminal code. I have in fact received hundreds of letters regarding the bill. Letters in favour have been almost exclusively from large urban area such as Toronto and Vancouver and their surrounding areas. The letters opposed have been exclusively from rural areas.

Farmers from my riding of Provencher and from all across Canada are very worried that the legislation and the impact it will have will undoubtedly impact negatively on their livelihood. They are afraid that one day the provisions that we are debating could put them in front of a judge for practices that they, their parents and their grandparents have been carrying out for generations. Many of my constituents perceive this bill as just one more example of how the government has pitted urban Canadians against rural Canadians to gain political favour among a small but powerful circle of special interest groups.

A 1998 Department of Justice consultation document acknowledged that well organized groups can and do initiate letter writing campaigns on this issue and that such campaigns can have an influence on government policy. For several years now organizations, such as the Animal Alliance of Canada and Zoocheck Canada, have been appealing to Canadians and to the government on an emotional rather than a rational level, using slogans such as “They're getting away with murder”.

During the past several years a great deal of misinformation has been circulated by animal rights groups, by the press and by individuals who believe that we need to pass the legislation in order to prevent horrific crimes against animals, such as those we have heard about over the past several months, including some of the ones referred to by the Liberal member who spoke previously, stories of cat skinnings and of dogs being starved, tortured or otherwise abused or neglected.

The extensive media coverage on this issue seems to indicate that many Canadians have been advised that somehow we do not already have laws to prosecute those who skin cats and drag dogs behind vehicles for pleasure. This erroneous idea, which has been perpetuated by animal rights groups in Canada, is completely false.

The animal cruelty laws on the books are good laws. They already criminalize intentional acts of cruelty against animals and there is no urgent need for that aspect of the law to be changed. The penalties for these offences are admittedly inadequate and I strongly support raising the penalties for these offences but the laws themselves must not be changed in the manner proposed by the legislation.

The issue is not whether or not we support legislation to deal with cruelty to animals. It is not about whether the majority of Canadians support this concept, because clearly they do. The issue is about the implications that this poorly drafted and poorly thought out legislation could have on potentially a very large number of Canadians.

To those who claim that something must be done about animal abuse, I agree. Those who intentionally abuse or neglect animals must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. No one wants to see animals abused. I own a dog and I do not use that term apologetically. I own a dog and I would be shocked and angry if he were harmed in any way.

My colleagues and I in the Canadian Alliance abhor animal cruelty and, as I have said, strongly support changes to the law that would strengthen the penalties for animal cruelty offences. However, we do not support the amendments to the criminal code found in Bill C-15B because they will significantly alter the ability of farmers, ranchers and medical researchers, among others, to engage in the legitimate and beneficial activities that they presently undertake.

One of the biggest problems in the legislation is the issue of animal cruelty offences being moved out of the property section of the criminal code. A few weeks ago in the London Free Press a journalist wrote that listing animal cruelty offences under the property section, as they currently are, is “a lot like saying hitting your horse with a 2x4 is akin to bashing your refrigerator”. The mistaken logic in this argument, apart from the unreasonable implication that a judge cannot tell the difference between a refrigerator and a horse, is at odds with the fact that people naturally have an interest in protecting their property, not harming it.

The overwhelming majority of animal owners, be they ranchers or dog lovers, have an overriding interest in ensuring the health and safety of an animal that they have purchased and cared for over time. In any case, the removal of the animal cruelty offences from the property section of the criminal code, as this legislation proposes to do, will have both a lasting symbolic effect as well as causing practical difficulties for many Canadians.

Moving animal cruelty offences out of the property section of the code is applauded by extreme animal rights movements because it will cause a fundamental change in the way that animals are perceived in our society and it will certainly change the way the courts view these offences. Judges will take into account these changes and attempt to interpret the reasoning and the intent behind it when applying the legislation to any future prosecutions laid under these provisions.

The prior justice minister and the justice department claim that moving the animal cruelty offences out of the property rights section has no legal significance. The member just stated that the minister has said that what was lawful before remains lawful now, so in essence there is no legal significance to this. If there is no legal significance to this, if what is lawful now remains lawful with this new legislation, it begs the question, why do it at all? If we are saying to judges that we are altering the legislation substantially but it is of no legal consequence, I can hardly believe that a judge would think that parliament would go through this exercise in order to do absolutely nothing.

Let us not mislead anyone. These provisions are making substantive changes. What is lawful now may well not be lawful tomorrow if the bill is passed. If that is not the case, why make these changes?

Although the former minister of justice who introduced Bill C-15B stated that it was not her intention to substantially change the law governing animal cruelty, in fact the proposals would remove the defences currently applicable to those who engage in activities ranging from traditional and legitimate farming practices to medical research that ultimately benefits the development of better health care for all of us.

Radical animal rights groups in Canada certainly will use this new legislation as the basis for legal harassment and unjust prosecutions, and in fact already have stated their intention to do so. The cost of defending an unjust prosecution, even if there eventually is a not guilty verdict, is a burden that ordinary Canadians cannot afford, nor should they be subjected to this burden. The animal rights lobby has argued consistently that legal rights for animals cannot be achieved until animals are no longer considered property under the law. I want to give the House just a few examples that illustrate the true intentions of these groups.

A lawyer for the World Society for the Protection of Animals, Lesli Bisgould, has been quoted as saying:

In fact, the legal status of animals today is analogous with that of oppressed groups in society over the past century, the right not to be seen as a means to an end, the right not to be property.

In a 1999 recommendation to the justice department, the Ontario SPCA said that pets should:

...become literally a part of the family and any abuse, wilful or otherwise, would be treated the same as abuse of a child.

Such groups who would chose to compare the life of an animal to the life of a human child should not be taken seriously, especially given the fact that they represent only a minute percentage of Canadian society, yet we have a Liberal government adopting that philosophy. They are the groups that are influencing government policy. They are the groups saying that animals are equivalent to children. It demeans children. It demeans human beings. This is the type of philosophy that the Liberal government is asking Canadians to accept.

Liz White, the director of the Animal Alliance of Canada, has stated in particular reference to this legislation:

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.

At least this individual is telling the people of Canada the truth. She is saying that what is lawful today will not be lawful tomorrow because these animal rights groups that have the inside track to the federal government, to the federal Department of Justice, will ensure that these prosecutions are undertaken.

She has also told her membership this:

My worry is that people think that this is the means to the end, but this is just the beginning. It doesn't matter what the legislation says if no one uses it, if no one takes it to court, if nobody tests it. 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.

This is nothing about reforming the law. This is everything about adopting a radical animal rights agenda in order to prosecute farmers and others in the food production industry, as well as medical researchers.

A spokesman for the Voice for Animals Society in Edmonton made a statement in the Edmonton Sun on June 6, 2001, in reference to cattle branding, a practice which, I understand, has been going on for some time. It is lawful today to brand cattle. The spokesperson stated:

I sincerely hope the new law does lead to [court action]. We need to fundamentally reconsider some of these practices.

This is in reference to cattle branding. The spokesperson also stated:

I think that's what this law is for, to challenge the thinking. Cattlemen just want it to be business as usual.

That is what the minister has said, that it will be business as usual, that the law is not changing. That is what the member across the way has said, that the law today will be the law tomorrow. What is lawful today will be lawful tomorrow.

However, we know from these changes, and any reasonable lawyer, which is not an oxymoron as I am a lawyer myself, reading these provisions will understand, that something substantive has happened here in the House. If nothing substantive has happened, what are we doing here? Why make all these changes if there are no substantive changes?

I was a former prosecutor. I can just imagine appearing before the judge saying “Well, Your Honour, there have been substantial movements in these sections, substantial changes in the wording. We have taken these offences out of the property sections and moved them to a new part, but, Your Honour, I want you to think nothing of it. Nothing has really happened. There have been no substantive changes made”.

The defences that apply to the property sections, which now do not apply to these new sections, do not make any difference because apparently, from the reasoning across the way, those defences in the criminal code were mere window dressing. The member opposite said that in 40 years those defences have never been used. Does he not get the connection as to why those defences have never been used? Does anyone know why they have never been used? Because they would not allow an unjust prosecution to be commenced.

Those defences in the code stop the offence from being charged. A prosecutor looking at the property section would say there is a section he would like to use prosecute a person who commits an offence, but then he would say there seem to be these defences there, so he could not prosecute. The defences are there. These things never come to court, so of course they are never used in court.

The thinking across the way astounds me. The problem is, I do not think any of these people have ever been inside a court and have actually heard judges or lawyers make arguments. This seems to be an academic's dream and a cattleman's nightmare.

The intention of these groups is clear. As soon as the legislation is passed into law their members will commence private prosecution against farmers, ranchers, researchers and anyone else presently using animals for lawful and legitimate purposes. Most, if not all, of these charges may eventually be thrown out by the presiding judge, but the fact is that such prosecutions not only will tie up our courts and our justice system needlessly, they will cause great expense to the very people who cannot afford to be abused in this way.

I can just picture myself in front of one of my farmers who is charged under this private prosecution and saying that there is this great new thing that we do; we go up in front of a judge who is going to clear whether or not that charge can proceed. What we are doing is imposing a whole new system of preliminary hearings. On the one hand the former minister of justice has introduced legislation disposing of preliminary hearings. The defence lawyers were very angry about that because preliminary hearings are a good way to make money. Now what the government has done is institute preliminary hearings to see whether or not private prosecution should proceed.

The accused would go in front of a judge. Even if he is unjustly accused he has to hire a lawyer and argue against this. That is what a screening process is. It would be a legal hearing with all the attendant costs. What this does is fly in face of common law tradition, which states that the attorney general of the province can come into court and stay the charge if it is a frivolous prosecution. In respect of contentious charges, there are often sections in the criminal code that say that the prosecution shall not be commenced without the consent of the attorney general.

Rather than simply putting in that kind of provision, what has the government done? It has instituted a bureaucratic nightmare that will impact adversely on the pocketbook of somebody who has been unjustly prosecuted. That is what this is all about. This is the biggest piece of nonsense I have seen introduced in legislation in years. Believe me, I have seen a lot of nonsense and I have had to prosecute under it, but this is one of the biggest pieces of nonsense. Somehow the government is trying to tell the people of Canada that it is doing this for their own protection.

I could go on for hours outlining what appear to be the intentions of the animal rights lobby, but one of the most alarming aspects of this campaign is revealed in a fundraising letter from Liz White of the Animal Alliance. She stated:

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.

That is interesting. She continued, stating that:

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

She says it has done a good job on Bill C-15B and I say it has done a good job on the Canadian people. She continued, stating that:

--and our first chance to reward them will be in the upcoming byelection in Calgary Southwest.

She also referred to the last federal election in the former justice minister's riding. She stated:

Because of a commitment made by the Minister of Justice...in the House of Commons to pass C15B, Environment Voters campaigned for her re-election. Under attack by hunters and gun owners and a cabal of extremist right wing groups, [the minister] was in a losing campaign. Environment Voters stepped in and championed her election...Good to her word, [the minister] introduced the breakthrough animal protection legislation.

Talk about reward and punishment. According to the people who have supported and who have stood shoulder to shoulder with the former justice minister, the bill is the political payoff that that minister has to pay. Her own supporters are saying that and acknowledging it publicly. Is it not nice to know that these groups view Bill C-15B as a political payoff for the minister having introduced legislation in accordance with a radical agenda. Unfortunately the Liberals will not be running a campaign in Calgary Southwest.

The fact of the matter is that the goal of these groups is to fundamentally change the way in which animals are viewed in society. The Liberals continue to claim in committee hearings and in the media that frivolous, nuisance prosecutions will not be pursued and that they do not intend to prosecute farmers, hunters or medical researchers carrying out lawful activities. Yet their private statements to their own members is radically different from what they are telling the public, and I have quoted them extensively.

In a posting on an Internet chat site called Animal Rights News one subscriber wrote in reference to justice committee proceedings. It said:

The good news is that animal rights groups have researchers, hunters, fur people, farmers and other animal exploiters shaking in their boots and they feel that we are a real and genuine threat to their barbaric ways.

These are the groups who are supporting this legislation, who supported the former justice minister and who said publicly that the law as it is today will be the same tomorrow and we are going through this exercise of changing the law. We obviously are changing it for substantive reasons and those reasons are, simply put, a political payoff as these groups have acknowledged.

The extreme nature of their agenda is demonstrated by the fact that they claim that using animals for food, research, clothing or even as pets as people have done since the beginning of human civilizations, are “barbaric” practices and should be stopped.

I would now like to quote from a letter written by Pierre Berton, senior patron of Canadians for Medical Progress to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, that refutes the common claim by many of these radical groups and by government members themselves that private prosecutions will not be pursued using this new legislation. He stated:

One glaring example of a Canadian private prosecution undertaken by the Life-Force component of the animal-rights movement against Dr. William Rapley and Dr. Bernard Wolfe of the University of Western Ontario, ground through the courts in London, Ontario in 1985, and was finally thrown out of the courts because of its frivolous and malicious nature. The private prosecution was undertaken because the public prosecutor had refused to lay charges. There have also been many such cases in different U.S. jurisdictions over the year

He went on to say:

The decision to move animals from the Property section in Bill C15-B, will most surely open the door to an abundance of similar frivolous private prosecutions from the animal rights movement, against the research enterprise, in the future.

This is the eminent Pierre Berton telling us as we on this side of the House already know, that these animal rights activists will attempt to disrupt medical research that means a difference in our health care standards in this country.

This legislation would not only change fundamentally the way in which animals are viewed by the courts and by society, but moving animal cruelty offences out of the property section into a section or a part of its own removes the legal protections currently in place.

The phrase “legal justification or excuse and colour of right” in section 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any type of property offence and protects them from the charges being laid in the first place. Courts have held that these defences apply where the accused had the honest belief in a state of facts which, if true, would constitute a legal justification or excuse. For example, an honest but mistaken belief that it was necessary to kill an animal to put it out of its misery after a person had accidentally shot and wounded it while trying to frighten it off the land would be sufficient to provide a colour of right defence under these provisions.

This also applies to the performance of research on animals and a range of other legitimate activities. However, in the new bill, the fact that the animal cruelty provisions would be moved out of the general classification of property offences and into a section of their own would remove these provisions outside the scope of that protection and, therefore, charges could be laid, whereas previously the charges could not be laid.

The Canadian Alliance asked the government members to make the defences in section 429(2) explicit in the new legislation, but they refused. I believe it was my colleague from the Bloc who made that amendment.

In justice committee proceedings, the minister's parliamentary secretary attempted to assure the committee that it was the government's intention that the defences in section 429(2) of the code would continue to apply to cruelty to animals offences and that these defences were implicit in the new legislation. However, when the amendments were moved that would have made these defences explicit, the government members opposed them.

If these defences are already implicit, what possible objection could there be to make them explicit, other than to deny these protections to farmers and others who will be subjected to unfair prosecutions?

Instead of making these defences explicit in the legislation, the minister amended the bill to confirm that the common law defences available under section 8(3) of the criminal code would continue to apply to any cruelty to animal offences. This of course is meaningless. Section 8(3) already applies to the entire criminal code. Making that amendment does nothing. What the Liberals are trying to do is evade the direct, explicit protection that those defences in section 429(2) would have provided to these farmers.

Furthermore, as noted by the Canadian Council for Animal Care in committee testimony, these defences in section 8(3) do not necessarily encompass a recognition of the lawfulness of using animals for research and medical testing. Although common law defences could encompass activities authorized by statutes, such as the slaughter of animals for food, laws authorizing animal use in research only applies to six of the thirteen provinces and territories, and there is no federal legislation authorizing this kind of activity. Needless to say, many medical research groups and universities are very concerned with the implications this bill may bring if it is passed as currently written.

In answer to these concerns, and I need to reiterate this again, the former minister amended the bill to provide this screening mechanism which she claimed was a powerful tool to prevent frivolous private prosecutions.

What kind of a system is it? Well the mechanism would allow a provincial court judge to prescreen such prosecutions and decide whether they should proceed. The provincial judge does not get a file on his or her desk in his or her chambers and consider this. This is a prescreening that occurs in open court. This is a legal process and at a legal process I am sure the animal rights groups will have their lawyers there. Now we have the farmer or medical researcher being prosecuted.

My colleague across the way says that they do not need a lawyer. If the animal rights groups have all of the lawyers, we cannot have the farmer sitting there without a lawyer, and we know it will be an expensive process.

I want to reiterate what I said. What we are doing is creating a whole new class of preliminary hearings with day after day of evidence to see whether there is a reasonable basis for the charge to be laid. That is essentially what a preliminary hearing does. Now we are putting it in there instead of a simple provision that says that the consent of the attorney general in the province where the prosecution is taking place must be obtained before the prosecution proceedings.

Why do they not trust the public prosecutors? The Liberals do not trust them because the public prosecutes do not have a political agenda to go after farmers and medical researchers. They have not been bought off by the animal rights activists who are collecting on a debt their minister incurred during the last federal election, as the animal rights people have indicated.

Instead of alleviating the fears of farmers and other groups who rely on animals for their livelihood, this process being put into place by the government will only lengthen an already cumbersome and expensive legal process to which this farmer or medical researcher would be subjected.

It might be all right for Liberals with deep pockets to be prosecuted for this kind of an offence. They can hire all the lawyers, appear in front of the judge and argue with the animal rights activists. However there are a lot of people in my riding who earn a living the honest way, on the farm, producing food for the people of Canada. They will be taking the brunt of this radical animal rights agenda.

None of the concerns raised in committee hearings or in the House of Commons by those in favour of Bill C-15B would address the pressing need to ensure that cruelty to animals would be more effectively addressed by these amendments.

None of these examples demonstrated that. In fact even the provisions to increase the penalties are really a fiction because we know that those maximum penalties under the existing law are rarely, if ever, imposed. Therefore we can increase the penalties all we want. It will not make a difference if the judges do not impose or the prosecutors do not request those maximum penalties.

There are many other points that I would like to make in respect to this case but I think that the drift of the debate has gone far enough. I realize my time is drawing to a close, but the House and the committee needs to consider this further. Therefore I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefore:

“Bill C-15B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering clause 8, taking into consideration the importance of ensuring that the legitimate use of animals by farmers, sportsmen and medical researchers should be protected under this bill.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to re-emphasize that through this process the number of revocations is 32 times higher than the total of the previous five years under the old program.

The licensing phase of the program has also produced a very successful compliance rate of about 90%. As we know firearm owners had to apply for a firearms licence by January 1, 2001. Eligible firearm owners who applied by the deadline should now have their firearms licence. We are now dealing with a small percentage of applications that need follow up due to incomplete forms or that require further review for public safety reasons.

We have now turned to the next phase of this important public safety program, the registration of firearms by January 1, 2003. As part of our commitment to facilitate compliance with the firearms program, firearm registration is now easier than ever. On a region by region basis licensed firearm owners have received a personalized registration form in the mail offering a limited time to register their firearms without charge. Another new feature is an online firearm registration process.

Despite the efforts of some opponents of this program to prevent Canadians from registering their firearms the response to these initiatives has been extremely positive. The amendments proposed in Bill C-15B would build on the success of the firearms program to date and the lessons learned, and I admit there have been lessons learned, from the licensing experience.

We are not changing the basic policy goals of the program such as the firearm registration deadline, nor the government's commitment to public safety. Instead, we are putting forth administrative changes that would facilitate compliance with the program and continue to ensure a high level of service to clients. These are a direct response to extensive consultations with program partners and stakeholders, including the policing community, gun owners and other Canadians.

These administrative changes would allow us to simplify the processes and requirements for firearm owners. At the same time it would strengthen the program's contribution to public safety.

Client service and efficiency would be enhanced by designing a more streamlined system. This would include simplifying firearm licence renewals and the registration process. Preprocessing of visitors bringing guns into Canada would also make the border process more efficient.

We would improve efficiency and reduce costs. For example, we intend to balance the workload associated with the program by staggering the firearms licence renewals. This would avoid a surge of applications in a five year cycle pattern.

We would improve the day to day administration of the firearms program by ensuring more direct accountability. We would achieve this by consolidating operational authority under the program through the Canadian firearms commissioner who would report directly to the Minister of Justice.

Other amendments would allow us to enhance border controls when it comes to firearm imports and exports and to meet our commitments under international agreements. This would include the recently finalized United Nations firearms protocol which supports Canadian policies and would be an additional tool in helping to curb the illegal trafficking of firearms.

We have heard and carefully considered the views of various individuals and organizations that appeared before the committee. In its testimony we heard the law enforcement community reaffirm its support for this program and its essential crime fighting tools.

The Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police outlined the significant public safety benefits of this program which combined the screening of applicants, tracking of firearms and minimum mandatory sentencing to help deter, prevent and prosecute firearm crime in Canada.

We have also heard the minister's user group on firearms maintain that these amendments are an important step forward in ensuring a fair balance between the interests of responsible firearm owners and our shared objective of public safety.

In response to specific issues raised, the government has responded with technical amendments that were adopted by the committee. I am confident that these will go a long way toward addressing any lingering concerns.

The government is committed to enhancing the safety of Canadians inside and outside of their homes. The amendments to the Firearms Act included in Bill C-15B will help ensure that the key public safety goals of the Firearms Act are met while ensuring that the administration of the program is more efficient, effective and client friendly.

Both the firearms and cruelty to animals provisions of Bill C-15B are supported by a large majority of Canadians. I urge the House to give this important legislation its final approval.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Madam Speaker, for example, in respect of cruelty offences which either prohibit conduct outright or which prohibit causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury, the defence of duress might apply in an exceptional circumstance.

Colour of right, mentioned in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code, has two alternative meanings. In the context of property offences, colour of right is used to justify actions on the basis that the accused had possessory or proprietary rights to the property. Colour of right is referred to in subsection 429(2) because that part of the code deals with property offences.

Case law has also confirmed that the term colour of right is used to denote an honest belief in a state of facts which, if it actually existed, would at law justify or excuse the act done.

The courts have said that when used in this sense colour of right is merely a particular application of the doctrine of mistake of fact. Mistake of fact is a common law defence and all common law defences are preserved by subsection 8(3) of the criminal code.

There is case law that expressly states that even if subsection 429(2) of the criminal code did not apply a defence based on raising a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused had colour of right would be available to an accused at common law.

To make its intent absolutely clear in the application of common law offences to cruelty offences the committee amended Bill C-15B to expressly refer subsection 8(3) of the criminal code. This means that all defences that could possibly be relevant in intentional cruelty and criminal neglect cases are expressly made applicable.

I would like to address one further concern that has been expressed by members of the House. Some members have suggested that the provisions of Bill C-15B would invite animal rights activists to use the criminal courts to challenge industry and research practices or to bring frivolous or vexatious prosecution. Even though there is no evidence that frivolous or vexatious prosecutions have been a problem over the past 50 years I draw the attention of members of the House to the provisions of an omnibus bill which was recently considered and passed by the House and is now returning to the House from the Senate.

Bill C-15A would provide important protections for persons who may be the subject of an information laid by a private individual. Because all of the animal cruelty offences in Bill C-15B are hybrid offences, with the exception of a breach of prohibition or restitution order, they would be subject to procedures for indictable offences.

Bill C-15A would provide that where an information is laid by an individual who is not a public or peace officer the justice who receives the information must refer it to a provincial court judge or a designated justice. In Quebec the relevant judge is a judge of the court of Quebec.

The judge or designated justice who receives the information must hold a hearing at which the attorney general has the right to attend, cross-examine and call witnesses and to present relevant evidence. It is only after this hearing has been held and only if the judge or designated justice considers that the case for issuing a summons or warrant has been made out that the accused would even be brought to court. This procedure would apply to all indictable offences and would offer an effective means by which allegations of animal cruelty made by persons other than public or peace officers could be assessed before a potential accused is put in jeopardy.

I would like to emphasize that there is a greater societal interest which is achieved by treating cruelty to animals more seriously. There is increasing scientific evidence that shows a correlation between animal cruelty and subsequent violence against humans. Our judges, health professionals and law enforcement officers are beginning to recognize and address animal abuse as an aspect of a bigger problem of violence in our society. I ask the House to do the same.

I would like to turn now to the proposed administrative improvement to the firearms program. Canada's firearms program is a practical and common sense approach to gun safety that works to keep firearms from those who should not have them while encouraging safe and responsible gun use by legitimate firearm owners. This is achieved with the licensing of firearm owners and firearm registration. Some of the program's opponents will tell us that targeting Uncle George's duck gun would do nothing to prevent crime. They are just plain wrong.

In 1998, 63% of all female domestic homicide victims were shot with ordinary rifles and shotguns. A further 21% were shot with sawed-off shotguns and rifles. In the home Uncle George's duck gun can have tragic consequences.

Canadians remain steadfast in their support for this public safety initiative. The government's approach to preventing firearm deaths, injuries and crimes is a clear reflection of Canadian values and principles. Poll after poll shows the overwhelming majority of Canadians support gun control and support the important public safety framework of the Firearms Act. In fact, an Environics poll taken late last year showed that the majority of the supporters of all political parties in the House supported the firearms program.

Our national investment in this program is already paying off in terms of public safety benefits and in compliance. Enhanced screening of firearms licence applicants and continuous eligibility screening of licence holders is already leading to safer homes and communities by keeping firearms from those who should not have them.

Since December 1, 1998, over 4,000 licences have been refused or revoked by public safety authorities. The number of revocations is 32 times higher than the total of the--

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the House of Commons about the provisions of Bill C-15B, an act to amend the criminal code, dealing with cruelty to animals and firearms, and the Firearms Act.

Before turning to the substance of the bill, I would first like to acknowledge the very fine work that was conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in its careful review. The applause I hear is a worthy statement of how we feel about that work because it did a very careful review of all the provisions in Bill C-15B.

The committee had the benefit of hearing from a wide spectrum of witnesses with a wealth of experience and knowledge. This information assisted the committee in its review and modification of Bill C-15B. I am grateful to the committee for its work in advancing the debate and understanding of the legislation.

Turning now to the content of the bill, I will start with consideration of the animal cruelty provisions.

I am pleased to say that there is overwhelming support for the objective of Bill C-15B to modernize and update the sections of the criminal code dealing with animal cruelty. This objective has three aspects.

The first aspect is to recognize animal cruelty offences for what they are. Animal cruelty offences are crimes of violence. They ought to be treated as such. Their seriousness ought to be reflected in the penalties available for these offences.

The vast majority of Canadians who have voiced their opinion on this subject have made it very clear that they want cruelty offences to be treated more seriously. The public was consistent in its message on this point during the consultations in 1998 when the department solicited views on the current animal cruelty provisions in the criminal code. They have continued to voice their support in increased penalties, as evidenced by the many petitions and letters the Department of Justice and members of parliament have received over the past three years.

The Canadian public is demanding that our laws on animal cruelty be updated and the penalties increased. In this regard, it should be noted that the committee adopted an amendment to raise the maximum fines available for intentional cruelty and criminal neglect offences when prosecuted by summary conviction to $10,000 and $5,000 respectively.

This brings me to the second aspect of modernizing the law on animal cruelty.

In the course of discussions on Bill C-15B, some people have suggested that there is no need to change the current provisions of the code beyond raising the penalties. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the anachronisms and unnecessary complexities of the current law.

In some of the current animal cruelty provisions in the criminal code, the proprietary status of an animal determines whether or not a successful prosecution can be brought, even though the basic policy of the cruelty provisions is to protect all animals from intentional cruelty and criminal neglect. An example of this is section 445 of the criminal code which only applies to animals kept for “a lawful purpose”.

Bill C-15B addresses the unnecessary complexity of the current law. Let me give an example.

It appears that subsection 446(1)(a) of the criminal code is restricted to wilful infliction of unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. This provision however must be read in conjunction with subsection 429(1), which states that wilfully includes recklessly. Further, it is only through reading subsection 446(3) that it is clear that paragraph 446(1)(a) actually creates two offences: one of intentional cruelty and the other of causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury through criminal neglect.

Bill C-15B rids the law of these complexities and anachronisms and clearly sets out two main categories of offences: intentional acts of cruelty and those acts which cause pain, suffering or injury to animals by reason of criminal negligence. The creation of these two categories of offences in Bill C-15B provides clarity in the law in terms of precisely defining the mental and physical elements of the offences. Clarity and precision in the law operate to the benefit of all Canadians.

In the interest of promoting certainty in the law, I would like to note for the record that based on a concern raised by research and industry about the applicable level of criminal intent in one of the criminal neglect provisions the committee adopted an amendment. The amendment specifies that the offence of abandonment must be committed with “wilful or reckless” intent and that all other offences in the criminal neglect section must meet a standard of criminal as opposed to civil negligence.

A third aspect to modernizing the law is to fill a gap in the law. At the present time a person who has a lawful purpose for killing an animal but who does so brutally and viciously cannot be charged with cruelty unless they also cause unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to the animal.

Bill C-15B creates a new offence of intentionally killing an animal brutally or viciously whether or not the animal suffers pain. For example, such conduct could include tying an animal to a railroad track, fastening an explosive device to an animal, or putting an animal in a microwave oven.

In my remarks today I would like to address a point about which there appears to be much confusion. Some members have suggested to the House that if the defences in subsection 429(2) did not exist, industry would be guilty of committing cruelty offences. The main animal cruelty offence of causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury is structured in such a way that industry and research practices are factored into determining whether a cruelty offence has even been committed. This is an extremely important point and I would like to take a few minutes to elaborate on it.

The first part of the analysis in determining whether an offence of causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury has been committed is to examine the lawfulness of the purpose for which the pain was inflicted. On the basis of the recognition of industry and research practices in case law, common law, codes of practice, provincial, territorial and federal legislation and conventions concerning animal use, there is absolutely no question that the use of animals in industry or research always has been and will continue to be legal.

Even if the purpose is legal, the inquiry does not end there. The second issue to examine is whether or not the means used to achieve the purpose imposed avoidable pain, having regard to other means reasonably available “given costs and social priorities” as noted by the court in the leading case on cruelty.

An offence of causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury is only made out if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused inflicted avoidable pain on an animal in these circumstances. This has been the test for liability in the criminal code for this offence since 1953 and it continues to be the test.

The government has stated repeatedly that what is lawful today will remain lawful after Bill C-15B comes into force. It is simply not an accurate statement of the law to suggest that because of subsection 429(2) of the criminal code, industry is effectively exempt from animal cruelty provisions because they have a lawful purpose for inflicting pain, suffering or injury. No one is exempt from the application of the criminal law on animal cruelty. They never have been and they will not be in the future.

Reasonable industry practices are not criminal because they do not meet the threshold of criminal liability and not because they are exempt.

Members of the House may be reassured to know that a witness who appeared before the committee on behalf of the Criminal Lawyers Association stated that it was the view of its members that moving the cruelty provisions out of part XI of the criminal code was appropriate and that no defences were lost to accused persons because of this move.

I have a last word on the issue of defences. Over the past 50 years the defences in subsection 429(2) have never been raised in a reported case involving the intentional infliction of unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. There is an obvious reason for this. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances giving rise to a defence for intentional cruelty offences.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, be read the third time and passed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.56 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at report stage of Bill C-15B.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:)

Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by over 1,000 people in my riding which is the most recent manifestation of interest in Bill C-15B which the House is considering. This legislation deals with cruelty to animals, particularly pets.

These petitioners point to several recent highly publicized examples of animal abuse and neglect. Sadly, some of those were in the general Peterborough area. For example, the cruel drowning of a German shepherd which resulted in the establishment of the Lost Shepherd Society which is behind this particular petition, and a dog that was dragged behind a pick-up truck and badly injured as a result.

This petition includes the signatures of many frontline workers: veterinarians, people who work and volunteer in humane societies and so on. They know Bill C-15B is before the House and they call upon parliament to expedite Bill C-15B in the process of enacting it into law and ask all members to act in good conscience in voting for the legislation.

Pest Control Products Act

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, as my learned colleague said, I am the chief agriculture critic for the Canadian Alliance. I will be taking a bit more of an agriculture perspective on the bill.

The bill we are presently debating would enact the pest control products act. It is the primary legislation that would control the import, manufacture, sale and use of all pesticides including insecticides, herbicides and fungicides in Canada.

The bill was first introduced in 1969 and has not been significantly updated since that time. It is a positive note that the Liberal government has finally gotten around to updating the bill. In fact it has some potential to improve on the environmental aspects of the chemicals that we use at the present time.

The bill essentially would strengthen health and environmental protection, make the registration system more transparent and strengthen post-registration control of pesticides.

With regard to industry's reaction, the Sierra Club is not too happy with it and would like to see more of a complete ban on pesticides. I had the pleasure of hearing Sharon Labchuk from Earth Action speak in Prince Edward Island. The MPs from Prince Edward Island had better take notice of Ms. Labchuk's comments because the small land area that is in Prince Edward Island will be seriously affected by what the minister is saying, which is that this accidental spray contamination, as she would say, off the very field that it is being applied to will come under the intense pressure in Prince Edward Island. I will be interested to see whether those members from Prince Edward Island can support the full impact of the bill.

The Canadian Alliance certainly wants to examine the bill and in particular the minister's speech in which she talked about using the precautionary principle. She talked about the potential impact of chemicals, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides.

She then used a term that will take a lot of examination. She tried to define some kind of value. That will no doubt be the value of the bureaucrats and the value of the ministers and those elected officials at the given time in the future. Who knows whether the values they have could be to the extreme of saying that there should be no chemicals in use whatsoever.

The concern with this is that it seems like the government is moving away from science based decision making and moving into this quasi-philosophical method of assessing our chemicals and their impact on the environment and people. I think that is a dangerous thing on first blush.

The second question I posed to the minister, as she and her government move into this area of fuzziness, as it would appear to be, concerned the trade implications if the government were to use this as a non-tariff trade barrier to harass importers of foodstuffs into our country.

These are a couple of our major concerns.

I note that Mr. Lorne Hepworth, president of CropLife Canada which represents the chemical industry, said that most of the practices outlined in the legislation were already in practice. The industry has done a lot up to this point to make sure that not only are the chemicals and pesticides effective but that they are safe for the environment and safe for people.

The bill would require that it be implemented once it is passed and in a logical, efficient and effective way.

This brings me to the current operations under the director, Claire Franklin, of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. It would not matter how good a bill the House passed with the way the PMRA is being run at the present time. From the presentation Ms. Franklin gave to the agriculture committee some time ago, there is little hope of seeing any positive legislation implemented in a way that will satisfy the industry, the farmers and the environmentalists because of the inefficiencies and the philosophical attitude of the agency which is not in keeping with the attitude of the majority of Canadians.

The mismanagement at the PMRA is costing farmers money because they do not have access to newer, cheaper and more effective chemicals. These chemicals are in use in other countries. Were they brought into Canada, we would have less toxic chemicals that are more effective, that is, the new generation. That is not happening on a regular or timely basis because of the department.

The minister has had quite the history in the House. The minister is presently in charge of Health Canada. We see that as the provincial budgets come down, all the provinces will be spending over 40% of their budgets on health care. It is the minister's responsibility that health care is becoming untenable.

We are still battling it out in the House over her Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation. Once again, as late as April 3, the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and many other common sense average Canadian groups which are trying to make the economy of the country work and people who are trying to have their families and businesses progress in essence were hung out to dry. This lowers my confidence in the legislation. I mentioned the precautionary principle and the definition of some kind of value and the term “potential impact”, as things that I am not sure the minister is really going to deliver as more effective or better for industry and for Canadians as a whole.

The rigidity of the PMRA's bureaucracy is denying access to those cheaper chemicals in other countries. The Farmers of North America Inc. is one group trying to import chemicals that are used just a few miles across the border. The EPA in the United States is probably much more strict in regard to its regulations, legislation and examination of chemicals than we are here in Canada. Our rigid ineffective PMRA will not let those chemicals come in. Maybe it is not because the officials do not want to; it is just that they are so bound up in their own bureaucracy and the system is everything and effectiveness is nothing. We are being hurt very badly by not having access to those better chemicals and getting rid of the ones that are toxic that could and should be replaced. We will see if the legislation actually does that.

The Canadian Alliance always has some solutions. In regard to Health Canada and the PMRA, we should work more closely with regulatory bodies in other countries. For example, the PMRA should accept data from tests done in other countries if the products will be used under similar conditions in Canada.

This would reduce the time required to move new products through the Canadian system. As well it would reduce the licensing costs for chemical companies and therefore increase the likelihood that they would apply for a Canadian licence.

At the present time our market is fairly small in regard to a lot of agriculture production and chemical use. As a result it does not necessarily pay to go through the full bureaucratic process in Canada of up to four years of evidence given to the government to try to get a chemical in that is licensed as safe in the United States.

The process for re-evaluation of older chemicals consumes a great deal of the PMRA's resources. There are about 7,000 chemicals registered for use in Canada at the present time. That was the last figure I saw. We have two problems. One is that the government is not putting enough resources into re-evaluating these older chemicals. I do not want my granddaughter, my children, neighbours or others to be hurt by chemicals that are no longer considered safe. In fact for many of these chemicals, if the PMRA were to get off its butt, we would have the new ones that are less toxic brought into Canada which would make things safer for the environment and for all of us.

The process for re-evaluation of older chemicals consumes a great deal of the resources. The efficiency of the PMRA would be dramatically increased if it would accept the data from recent pesticide evaluations done by capable regulatory agencies in other countries. The legislation fails to force the PMRA to consider scientific research done in other jurisdictions. Furthermore, the bill will force additional re-evaluations on the PMRA for all pesticides older than 15 years which will be reviewed automatically even if there is no reason to suspect that their toxicity or safety is in question.

The PMRA should only review existing pesticides if suitable and effective alternatives exist. That is a very important point. It needs to prioritize what it is doing in government. That way it can get at the real problem chemicals while not looking at the others. From what I heard at the agriculture committee when the director and others were making their presentations, this is certainly not being done.

The transparency at the agency certainly has to be improved. The bill does improve the transparency of the agency in Canada's pesticide approval process and I give credit for that.

As I said, the bill has the potential to do some good but with the PMRA's bureaucratic intransigence, I suspect it may not accomplish what it is intended to do. That will depend on good solid direction from the minister. That cannot be emphasized enough. To this point the previous ministers have not given that kind of good solid direction. Absolutely every presenter that has come before the committee in regard to the PMRA's activities has been critical of its operation.

I have indicated I do not have much faith in the minister being able to do the job. However, she does have the confidence of the Prime Minister to do it, so we will just have to see. As I say, a lot of us on this side of the House do not have much hope.

We have some additional unanswered questions with respect to the PMRA. Why does the pesticide approval process in the United States occur much faster than in Canada? Why has the PMRA failed to increase its acceptance of data from reputable scientific bodies from other countries?

The efficiency of the PMRA would be significantly improved if it accepted the data from pesticide re-evaluations. There is no evidence that accepting data on pesticide research done in other countries poses any threat to Canadian health and safety. Still the government has the philosophy and obviously has given instructions to the PMRA that it is not to be the case that those studies and scientific examinations can be admitted into Canada.

We would like to know what the environmental impact is of Canada falling behind in the licensing of new and more effective pesticides. I have outlined some of the concerns in that regard. Certainly the safety of the environment and individual Canadians is one of the big things.

The government is not going to take into full consideration the trade impact and how it will be used by the minister when we talk about the precautionary principle. The minister talked about the potential impact of chemicals without really having a scientific basis for it. She talked about values. Anytime a Liberal uses the word values, man, I run for cover just like most of my neighbours do. That is scary because Liberal values represent virtually no Canadian but it will be their values that they want to push onto the rest of us.

At the present time the Crompton Corporation is suing the Canadian government for $100 million. It claims that Canada had no scientific basis to ban the chemical Lindane.

The government up to the present has shown a great deal of incompetence in regard to the operation of the health ministry as it pertains to the Pest Control Products Act and also in regard to the regulatory agency that is supposed to protect Canadians and facilitate industry, agriculture and the quality of life for all Canadians.

Reports have indicated that the PMRA is 40% less efficient than other countries, particularly the United States and Australia. This is in regard to efficiency in getting pesticide applications through the process. During 2000-01 a total of 22 minor use registrations were approved by the PMRA. Eighteen were for food use and four were for non-food use. During the same period over 1,200 minor use registrations were approved in the United States. More than 500 were for food use and over 700 were for non-food use.

The fact is that our industry, our farmers and our agricultural sector are competing directly head to head with the United States on virtually every commodity, with the exception of peanuts and some of the things grown in the tropics. There is a lot of work to be done. Canada imports U.S. fruits and vegetables grown using new chemicals not yet approved for use in Canada. It seems somewhat illogical that Canada would accept produce grown with more chemicals used by U.S. farmers but would refuse to license the pesticides themselves.

With that I will conclude by saying that the minister's speech should give all of us cause for concern. We should examine her words very carefully. We should examine this legislation before we throw our support wholeheartedly behind it.

We know of the pesticide anti-chemical bias in the government as evidenced by some of the bills that have been brought forward. In particular the one that really bothered me and a lot of Liberals attempted to say that somehow genetically modified foods were dangerous and scary. That was brought forward by a private member from the Liberal side. It was not based on science. It was based on bunk.

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise and speak on the bill, but once again I have to shake my head when I think about how the good idea of protecting animals could result in such a bad piece of legislation. I guess we should not be all that surprised. It seems to be a trend in the government, which has somehow managed to take an idea such as safer streets and turn it into a $700 million attack on law-abiding citizens with gun control. We can see a sort of trend coming forward from the government. We have the responsibility to make effective legislation, the responsibility for the needs of all Canadians. This attack on rural Canadians must stop.

Canadians are supportive of the current legislation of protecting animals under the criminal code. Instead of strengthening the penalties that violators face under the current legislation, the justice minister has brought forward a far-reaching piece of legislation.

There are two major concerns that I have about Bill C-15B. First, the definition of an animal is way too broad. The bill's proposed definition of an animal includes non-human vertebrates and all animals having the capacity to feel pain. Let us just take a couple of examples that would fit into those categories.

Rats feel pain and have vertebrae. I come from a province that is rat-free. We spend millions of dollars a year dealing with the problems of rat control within our province. Because of the natural boundaries of the Rockies on one side, we pushed back the rat population as much as we possibly could into Saskatchewan, yet under the application of the bill that could put in jeopardy. As well, the gopher problem is rampant in the prairies. The member from Lakeland, who sits next to me, could be called to task under the bill for bringing forward a private member's bill to introduce gopher poison.

It is not so much that we have a problem with the criminal code or with protection of animal rights, which we believe in; it is how the bill can be applied that gives us a great deal of concern. The new definition would provide new legal protection for a number of living organisms which have never before been provided with that kind of protection. My second concern with this piece of legislation is that it removes a protection currently provided under section 429(2) of the criminal code for persons who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justifiable practices, moving animal cruelty from under the umbrella of property offences into a new section emphasizing animal rights as opposed to animal welfare.

This throws it wide open to jurisdictional interpretation, where judges are allowed to perhaps favour special interest groups when it comes to animal rights. I see this change elevating the costs that are already overburdening our court system as frivolous lawsuits from animal rights activists skyrocket.

In my riding of Yellowhead, raising animals on farms for food has been a way of life for generations. I have raised dairy cattle and beef cattle and I currently raise elk at the same time. I know a little about what happens. The reality is that if we treat our animals poorly they will not be healthy. Sick and injured animals are not able to be productive and if they are not able to be productive, one is not going to be a farmer for long. I do not believe that is actually is happening on most of our farms that deal with the husbandry of animals. The fear of much of the agricultural community in my riding is that they have had the experience of activist judges or aggressive animal rights activists calling the shots. The skills of raising animals on farms have been developed and handed down from generation to generation.

Madam Speaker, if you have ever been on a farm you will know that everything that happens with regard to animals is not necessarily pleasant. Castration, dehorning and vaccinations might be seen by the outside viewer as harming the animal. The truth is that they are necessary for the strengthening and survival of the herd. It is not much different from a spoonful of honey making the medicine go down for children. We must do it because we love the child. Most farmers I know love their animals, look after them and do whatever is necessary to keep them healthy.

We must look at what motivated the former Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Edmonton West, to give animals special status. In a fundraising letter in the winter of 2002 the director of the Animal Alliance of Canada claimed responsibility for the minister's narrow election win. Could Bill C-15B be political payback for its work on her behalf?

I cannot emphasize enough the importance the Canadian Alliance puts on the welfare and safety of animals. The provisions currently in force within the criminal code could provide the required protection through increased penalties for violators. The scope of Bill C-15B is not clearly outlined. It would provide the government another opportunity to target law abiding farmers and hunters as criminals. I therefore cannot support Bill C-15B.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to offer a few remarks at the report stage of Bill C-15B, the second part of the justice omnibus bill, which deals with changes to the gun control registry and cruelty to animals. The section I want to speak to in this group of amendments strengthens the sections of the criminal code dealing with cruelty to animals. I support the proposed amendments and am proud to say that my constituents have been very vocal about supporting these amendments as well.

Our laws relating to cruelty to animals are written to exclusively benefit the human. Currently the legislative architecture of the criminal code leaves animals with the legal standing of property. A court must now define the abuses or neglect of an animal as an offence against the right of property. This offers the same protections and defences to the accused as someone who allegedly steals cars or forges credit cards. I find it disturbing that sections of the criminal code which currently forbid cruelty to animals are treated in the same way as possible offences of cruelty to computer equipment.

I am sad to say that after listening to the low level of the attacks on the government position in this debate I am left with the impression that some commenting on this matter care more for their cars or their computers than for their pets or for the animals that provide us with food or clothing.

No one suggests making assault or murder an offence against property. Offences against people are in a much more serious category, with harsher penalties and fewer defences, to reflect the more serious harm our society believes takes place when we commit a crime against a living person as opposed to a crime against property.

I believe that animals are living creatures as well. They feel pain and share this great planet with us. They are a critical part of our ecosystem. They provide comfort, food, clothing, companionship, loyalty and endless entertainment. They deserve better than to be given only the protection of property. That is why I and every single caller to my constituency office support this bill giving animals their own status as creatures that can feel pain.

The vicious opposition being brought to bear against the bill by the Alliance opposition party originally puzzled me. After all, concerns of farmers, fishermen, hunters and trappers were dealt with by ensuring that they would still have many of the defences they possess in the existing code available to them and would therefore not be subject to frivolous prosecution or harassment, but I understand the Alliance position a little better now that I have heard this debate. Their position reflects their new leader's attitude toward Canada, which some of us call the fortress Alberta position. Their opposition has little to do with protection of animals or with the bill.

Listen to what we have heard so far today. The Alliance members suggest that we oppose this and also oppose the bill to protect endangered species, as the Klein government has called on them to do. After all, as Klein says, property should have more protection than endangered species. They are saying to oppose the bill and to kill Canada's support for the Kyoto protocols to reduce greenhouse gases and to stop climate change, as Ralph Klein has said they must, because it would cost our poor struggling oil companies some profit. They oppose any attempt to stop global warming but also say that we should kill the bill and start to compensate farmers and cattlemen who are suffering through an extended drought in western Canada.

The bill is not about Kyoto, but I hope they remember that droughts are probably caused by climate change and if they want to help drought stricken farmers we should support Kyoto. One member even accused the former minister of justice of pandering to special interests and playing politics, saying that is why there is support for the bill. As far as I can tell, the bill is not about the last election or deals made by the former minister of justice. It is about animal rights.

Here is my position and I hope it is more to the point than some of the others that have been put on the record today. Animals should have more rights than property. Endangered species are animals as well and therefore they should have rights too. While the bill is not perfect and some of the loopholes such as the inclusion of the words “wilful” and “reckless” introduced by the government water down the original intent, we should pass this and try to improve on it later. I support animal rights and I, along with my other colleagues in the New Democratic Party, will be in support of Bill C-15B at report stage.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-15B and also to mention the title of the bill in starting. I want to talk today about judicial activism. Before I go any further, for the edification of the few Liberals who are in the House to listen to this, I point out that this does relate specifically to the bill. They do not have to call me on it because I intend to relate this clearly to the bill before the House.

In the case of judicial activism, there is a lot of talk of this in the public today. A lot of people are very upset with a lot of the decisions that are coming down these days by judges in our courts. As a result, they are calling for an overhaul of the judicial system itself, how we select our judges, the terms, the conditions under which they serve and so on.

An example of the kinds of things that are bothering members of the public under judicial activism is conditional release, a provision provided by the Liberal government in the House. Under conditional release judges may sentence people to serve their sentence entirely in the public without ever having to go to jail. The idea behind this apparently is that if the judges feel there is no risk to society with the person not being incarcerated, then they do not have to sentence them to actual prison time.

The Canadian public was alarmed and shocked when they found that people who were committing very serious violent offences, such as violent rapes, were being sentenced under this provision for conditional sentencing and were ending up not serving any time in jail. The public was outraged, and rightly so. People brought that to us and we in turn brought that to the House. We raised the issue in parliament. The response by the minister of justice at that time, who is now the Minister of Industry, was that it was never his intention that this should apply to violent offenders. Yet to this day that provision has never been changed.

Some time ago I did a study, along with other members of the House, of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. In the process of doing the study, we talked to all kinds of people involved in the corrections and justice system in the country. Some of the people we talked to were judges.

In talking to one particular judge, as an aside he brought up the subject of judicial activism. He said that he was not one to stand before us and say that none of the decisions made by his colleagues, the other judges, were made poorly. However he said that before we started to worry about changing the judges and judicial activism, we first should fix our legislation. He said that we could not keep writing legislation that caused them to be forced to consider anything brought forward by the attorneys for those who they were dealing with if the legislation provided the possibility of that. In the example of conditional sentencing, legislation did not preclude conditional sentencing being given to violent offenders and therefore they had to consider it.

That brings me to Bill C-15B, particularly the provision dealing with the penalties for cruelty to animals.

This places us in an awkward position, as many bills crafted by the Liberal government do, in that we support the motherhood issue of preventing cruelty to animals, and surely everyone in the House does. The question is not on the motherhood statement but rather on the application.

The previous minister of justice so often said that it was not their intention, then she carried on with whatever related to the particular bill of the day that she was involved in.

In this case she informed us that it was not her intention or the intention of the government that this would be applied arbitrarily to those who dealt with animals through farming, ranching and other forms of legitimate practices with animals. Yet the way the bill is crafted, there will certainly be those who will interpret it that way.

Just like in the case of conditional sentencing, where a judge says he or she has no choice but to consider that type of sentence because it does not preclude using that on a violent offender, there will be those who will raise charges against innocent people, who, through natural acts of animal husbandry, have not willfully harmed or been cruel to an animal. There are those who will nonetheless raise these types of prospects and the courts will have to look at them and in some cases convict people whom, according to the minister herself, harm was never intended to through the bill.

Her comment that anything that is legal today will be legal after the bill passes makes little sense given that she attempted to change so many things that are currently in place. If her only intention was to deal with genuine cruelty to animals, which should be dealt with, then all she had to do was raise the fines, the sentences and the penalties for those who are willfully cruel to animals. To do otherwise is to open up yet another Pandora's box. We have seen it with a variety of different judicial acts. We are seeing it even in the endangered species bill, wherein the government acknowledges the onus on the government to show that somebody willfully harmed an endangered species or its habitat but even if people do it accidentally they can still be charged.

The government's own response to that was that the government would rather leave it that way because it would make it easier to prosecute people in general and then consider special circumstances in the sentencing of people who are convicted of doing something without even knowing or being able to know that they were damaging habitat or the species itself. That kind of absurdity suggests that we will be allowing innocent people to be convicted and then say that it is okay because they will only get a tap on the wrist as their penalty. Nonetheless, it will still leave them with a criminal record. In light of September 11 and people with criminal records appearing at the borders, I can see the kinds of arguments they will have with American customs agents when they try to explain that their crimes were not really serious crimes because the government recognizes that they were really innocent and just convicted them because it was more convenient to do so.

That kind of absurdity in the crafting of bills is the same thing we are seeing in this provision in Bill C-15B. It is one of the reasons that the opposition often gets placed in the very awkward position of having to vote against bills that perhaps have good intent but are so poorly written and could so easily be corrected. It is a very frustrating thing in the House.

In the future, when you will still be elected, Madam Speaker, but the government will no longer be the government and you will have to sit in opposition, I am sure you will be thankful that the new government will not write bills in the same reckless and incoherent manner that the government does today.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the previous speaker for his remarks.

In going through Bill C-15B, it is important to keep in context how the legislation came about. It originally was before the House in the form of what is called an omnibus bill. There were a number of very complex and unrelated subjects that found themselves in the bill which caused a great deal of consternation I think for many members of parliament. It is a usual tactic that the government has employed to have its way, that is to essentially include a number of issues with which most if not all members agree and couple them with other pieces of legislation that the government would like to slide in, putting members of parliament in the uncomfortable position of voting against things of which they actually are in favour.

The strategical tactics unfortunately have blurred much of the merit of this particular bill. However the former minister of justice did climb down from her lofty position and agreed to some extent to split off parts of the bill to allow members to vote more freely and more in line with the wishes of their constituents and their own comfort levels.

We have before us a bill with a number of important amendments, which I would hope the government would consider, that would improve and in fact very much ameliorate the ability of the legislation to address the principle issue, and that is: helping to eradicate and give our law enforcement officials greater ability to enforce laws which are meant to curtail cruelty to animals.

We in the coalition are very supportive of any initiative that will bring about legislation dealing with crimes against animals. This legislation very much puts forward the spirit that we need to punish those who intentionally abuse or neglect animals. Cruelty to animals is an issue that has received significant public attention of late. In recent years psychologists have drawn clear parallels between a child's cruelty to animals and subsequent cruelty toward human beings in his or her adult life as one element to take into consideration.

We support as well the government's decision to put forward an ability for judges to remove barriers, to heighten the sentences and heighten the degree of deterrence that should emerge from cases where there is clear-cut, proven on evidence cases of animal abuse.

We do not, I hasten to add, adhere to the government's position in the legislation that to achieve the deterrents and to achieve the heightened degree of accountability, the government must remove the criminal code provisions dealing with animals from the property section of the code.

The proprietary aspects of animal abuse have always been very important in the prosecution of animal cruelty cases. Moving the animal cruelty provisions out of part XI of the criminal code removes the protection of legitimate based businesses that relate to animals and animal husbandry. By virtue of taking that section out of section 429(2) of the criminal code, this important ability to protect oneself by virtue of the law is removed. Let us be very clear about that.

The current section in the property law allows for legal justification, or excuse or colour of right to be claimed by a person who might be charged. Therefore it affords legal protection for acts which have always been seen as legitimate and outside the gamut of animal cruelty and always based upon the evidence. It is inappropriate and misleading in a malicious way to suggest that somehow removing these sections will protect animals any further than it currently does.

It currently is illegal to perpetrate any sort of cruelty against animals. The problem has been in the prosecution of these offences and further in the ability of the police to lay charges. That also ties very much into the resource allocation currently available for police in the country. Removing the cruelty to animals provisions from this section is of particular concern to hunters, trappers, farmers and to researchers. There is an important element in the use of animals for genetic research. People like John and Jessie Davidson would be the first to say that genetic research is something that has to be given a higher priority by the Parliament of Canada and the people of Canada.

These legitimate individuals who work and depend on animals for their livelihood have expressed very clearly to the government their concerns. They came before a committee. There was extensive study of this issue. Everything the bill seeks to achieve could be achieved by bringing about the amendments but leaving the current sections in the property section of the criminal code. Everything that is sought to be accomplished could be done so in that fashion.

We share the concerns of many Canadians, though, who have spoken about the definition of an animal. Any animal that has the capacity to feel pain does encompass in a large way any sort of cruelty that might be perpetrated. Yet through this definition, the government is putting at risk many activities that currently occur. We have heard examples of those. A farmer who puts a noose around an animal's neck to lead it to pasture or to pull it out of danger could potentially be charged.

We have heard ludicrous examples, such as putting a worm on a hook or boiling a live lobster. Potentially, if taken to the extreme, these types of activities could result in prosecutions. The sad reality of that is that the cost that would be expended and the delay in following through with these types of prosecutions, whether they be brought about by the crown or private prosecutions which currently can occur, would bankrupt and put out of business a lot of individuals who currently rely on animals for their livelihood.

Even the intentional act of stepping on a spider was one example that was given as cruelty to an animal.

My comments are in no way an attempt to make light of a serious situation but to point out that this type of law is very dangerous and should not be proceeded with in this fashion. This law could place fishermen, farmers, hunters, trappers, furriers or any individual that associates with animals at risk of frivolous prosecution and those who espouse radical views about animal protection.

The ensuing lawsuits could paralyze and bankrupt some businesses. It is well intended and there are many individuals who are well intended in their efforts to protect animals, but the reality is the horrific cases of animal abuse are currently illegal. It is a matter of enabling our system further to resource and through attention and priorizing the prosecutions for these types of offences. We support strengthening the criminal code and provisions dealing with animals and many of the improvements that are envisioned by the bill. This punishment and resource question is where the problem lies.

The minister did at least realize the carelessness that occurred in the drafting of the original bill, Bill C-17, and she was careful to now inject the word “wilful” with respect to cruelty and unnecessary pain being perpetrated in the drafting of this new bill.

Regrettably, the former minister did not see the need to keep the animal cruelty sections within the property sections of the criminal code. Thus, this improved legislation would not provide the adequate protection with which the majority of animal business people would be concerned. For that reason, sadly we are unable to support the bill.

We believe the legislation is needed and that further legislation is needed to prevent needless animal pain and suffering. An example that comes to mind is the case that many of us were transfixed on a few years ago when we heard about a Rottweiler dog that was dragged on a chain behind a pick-up truck. There was a case very recently in Kingston that was reported in the Kingston Whig-Standard of horrible abuse to a cat named Solitaire that was bloodied and battered. These type of cases are extremely offensive to the sensibilities of most Canadians.

The traditional practices of hunting, fishing and farming do not fit into the category of mean spirited violence, yet they could very much be caught up by virtue of these changes.

It is imperative that animal cruelty legislation be clearly designated to target those who would engage in brutal, deliberate acts against animals. Just as the other parts of this legislation which deal with firearms legislation, it is fine to try to redefine what the legislation does, yet we know it has been a complete and utter failure. The cost is prohibitive. The intent is such that individuals will not voluntarily participate.

For those reasons, and for reasons which I would like to elaborate on but due to limitations of time I cannot, our coalition cannot support the bill. We would be hopeful that the government would be willing to accept the amendments which would take away those sections which very much undermine the spirit and intent of the bill.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was quoting directly from the letter and I appreciate that. The dairy farmers go on to say:

Former Justice Minister...repeatedly met farmers' concerns with the statement that “what is lawful today will continue to be lawful”. If the government wants to ensure this, the defences currently available should not be removed.

The third point the dairy farmers make is the definition of animal cruelty in the bill must be amended.

Defining “animal” as “a vertebrate other than a human, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain” is too broad. As it is written, Bill C-15B threatens to subject farmers to protracted litigation as meaning is given to this definition through judicial interpretation. More importantly, this broad definition is not necessary to achieving the Government's goal of legislation.

The dairy farmers go on to say:

Prime Minister, no group of people in this country is more concerned about animal welfare than agricultural producers. Farmers set and follow high standards of animal care and treatment, and we believe those who neglect or viciously kill animals should be punished with the full force of law. However, Bill C-15B moves far beyond punishing those who neglect or viciously kill animals. The Bill unnecessarily elevates the legal status of animals and puts powerful legal tools into the hands of animal rights activists to lay animal cruelty charges against producers. At the same time, the Bill takes away defenses that should be available to farmers who responsibly produce Canada's food.

The three changes we have suggested will ensure that the law is fair and just, and will in no way detract from the Government's goal of increasing penalties for animal abuse offenses. I trust you will give careful consideration to these concerns, and on behalf of Canada's dairy producers, I thank you for your attention to this important matter.

The letter is signed by Leo Bertoia, president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada.

I believe that the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada makes a compelling case for changes to the bill. I think the last thing we want, and I would suggest that it is not the intention of the government, is to have farmers brought before the courts on frivolous charges of abuse. However it is implicit in the bill that that is a possibility.

It is also a possibility that fishermen and others who handle animals in the prosecution of business could in fact be brought forward on charges of cruelty to animals for doing what is normal and expected business practices. They are not practices which are intentionally hurtful but they are the usual practices of either agriculture or fishing.

I urge the government to reconsider the bill and to take into consideration the changes that have been suggested by the Dairy Farmers of Canada and by my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I will make it clear that my party supports stiffer penalties for animal cruelty and is against animal cruelty. It is an issue of concern to us. However the direction the government has taken is clearly wrong. There are other ways to achieve its objective.

I will give an example of the danger that could befall us if we follow the direction the government has taken. Recently in Denmark a fishmonger was convicted and fined $150 in court for having a live fish in his stall. This is the possibility that exists when we elevate the status of animals from property into some sort of nebulous, quasi-human status. What would the penalty be for a fisherman who caught a fish on a hook and brought it in? Obviously the animal is under stress when that happens. What would happen if a fisherman caught a fish in a gill net and the fish smothered, which is what they do in gill nets? Would the fisherman be brought forward in court and fined on that basis? Who knows?

The concern goes beyond that. There is concern in the agricultural community. The parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture has suggested the concerns are of no effect. He and the government assure us we do not need to worry about inappropriate interference in the agriculture business not to mention the fishing industry if Bill C-15B is brought into place. However there is considerable concern in the agricultural industry.

I will read into the record a letter by Leo Bertoia, president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada. The letter is directed to the Prime Minister. It is interesting that the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada would go beyond the agriculture minister and the justice minister and make his point directly to the Prime Minister. He states:

Dear Prime Minister Chrétien,

The cruelty to animals section of Bill C-15B places Canada's dairy producers at unnecessary risk of prosecution for engaging in normal animal handling practices. Dairy Farmers of Canada recommends that three changes be made to the Bill to ensure that farmers can continue, without extraordinary legal burdens and intrusions, to provide top-quality, safe, and affordable food for Canadians.

1. The current status of animals as “property” in the Criminal Code must be maintained.

Canada's agriculture industry is based on the principal of ownership of animals: a farmer's legal right to use animals for food production stems from his proprietary right in these animals. By moving the cruelty to animals provisions out of the special property section and creating a new section, the Government is changing the legal status of animals. This shift could lead to an unprecedented risk of prosecution of farmers who use animals for food production, as a farmer's right to use his animals would have to be reconciled with the new status of animals under the Criminal Code.

Humane treatment is not compromised by an animal's designation as property. The Government could maintain the current status of animals as property under the Criminal Code and still meet its stated goal of the legislation, which is to increase penalties for animal abuse and neglect.

1. The defenses of “legal justification, excuse and colour of right” that currently exist under subsection 429(2) must be retained.

Agricultural producers must have access to defenses that provide assurances for legitimate animal-based activities and businesses. Including these defenses would not diminish the stated intent of the law. Former Justice Minister Anne McLellan repeatedly met farmers' concerns with the statement that--