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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are drawing to a close on the debate in the House on Bill C-15B regarding firearms and cruelty to animal provisions in the criminal code. We are drawing the debate to a close for the simple reason that the Liberal government is incensed with the fact that people in Canada do not agree with it all the time. The opposition parties on this side of the House represent those people and, in the case of cruelty to animals, we represent the farmers. The government is so incensed that it has brought in closure to shut down legitimate debate on those provisions of the criminal code.

We are not in the House to debate, kill time or just talk because people voted us in and we are supposed to be here. We are here debating real issues that affect real people.

What I have to say here will be parliamentary but it may seem aggressive when I say that the farming community right across the country, from sea to sea, is still opposed to the legislation. The most recent example that I have is from May 31, just a couple of days ago, when members of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan said to the members of this parliament that they were 100% opposed to most of the provisions of the proposed cruelty to animals changes in the criminal code. However they are for stiffer penalties and are against the city people we see in the newspapers who have been skinning cats, crushing their heads and killing animals. They have enough common sense to be definitely against that.

They have also considered what the proposed law will do to farming and farming practices. I have heard a lot of debate in here about how farm practices are legal today and will be legal tomorrow. I have spent a lot of time over the years working in law enforcement and dealing with lawyers, crown attorneys and judges. It is my understanding that the criminal code, which is a federal law, takes precedence over the standards set by provincial organizations, the humane societies or farming groups. Why are we concerned? We are concerned because when the time comes that a charge is laid and it goes to court, the judge will not interpret that industry standard. The court will judge whether or not that animal was treated cruelly according to the provisions of the criminal code.

Why would that judge go against what the industry standard says? It is because the definition of animal has been changed. It has been changed to include any animal that has the capacity to feel pain. Another change is that it is no longer in the property section. Somehow animals can be on their own without ownership either by the federal government, in the case of wild animals, or by farmers.

As we have seen happen before, I think there is a very high likelihood that those judges will interpret this law in the very way it is written. I will not blame them for that. As the bill is written, if someone intentionally inflicts pain on such an animal, as in branding a calf or dehorning it after it is a few months old instead of as a little baby, the judge will say that the criminal code is quite plain on this, as we can read for ourselves. The judge will consider it an offence and he or she will find the farmer guilty. That is the problem. Is there any likelihood of that kind of a charge being laid? Absolutely, and it will not necessarily come from one of the animal rights organizations.

Today I had an interview with a young lady who is an aspiring journalist. She was talking about farming and we had a nice conversation. After she had finished her interview, she said that she knew the cruelty to animals bill was being voted on today. She urged me to vote against the bill. My point with regard to this young person and as it relates to young crown attorneys and young judges coming up, is that she has an animal rights agenda. As a journalist, she is in a position of power to help form public opinion through the persuasion of the pen.

The common sense of society is 100% against cruelty to animals. However the survival of mankind from the oldest times until the present says that after life itself there has to be food to eat and good quality food to eat, and that involves the use of animals for human consumption.

The hidden agenda being promoted by the animal rights people, including Mr. Rick Smith who is with the International Fund for Animal Welfare, is very clearly to move along animals from being property, like they have the government agreeing to, which is one step away from being property now, and to slowly attribute rights to the point where we will not be able to use animals for anything.

The other day I had a skunk at my ranch. Under this bill, I wonder if I was wrong in shooting that animal. It never did anything to me. It was not diseased as far as I could tell but I intentionally shot that animal. What right did I have to do that? In many areas like mine there are no policemen or people to do that job for me. However skunks have a tendency to contract rabies and a bite from them could kill a young child or a person. They certainly kill a lot of livestock. Would the bill make that kind of action on my part illegal? I suspect that may well be. The bill says that if one intentionally shoots or kills an animal, and then it goes into justification as to lawfully doing it.

I said I would be a little aggressive. I have to talk about the stand that was taken by the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, a leader in his party, a leader in his riding and a leader in the agriculture industry, especially in the chicken and feather industry. He has properly and rightly fought the bill for months. He had most of the rural members, who have farmers in their area, understanding that the bill was bad for agriculture and it was even bad for society as a whole.

What did the member say today? He said that he had changed his attitude, that everything was fine now and that he would vote for the bill. Why would the member do that? He said that the Senate would take care of it, that the Senate would make an amendment. We know that will not be the case. The member is misleading, not only his co-caucus members but the people in his riding. The Senate will pass the bill and it will be done and gone before July 15, which will be a sad day for agriculture.

I hope the bill comes back to the House so we can debate it again and maybe get it through the government's head that this is a bad bill for not only people in the country but also for people in the city.

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the cruelty provisions in Bill C-15B respond directly to the concerns of Canadians.

Over the past three years Canadians have been consistent and clear in their demands for action by the federal government to update the cruelty provisions and create stiffer penalties for acts of cruelty against animals. Bill C-15B would meet these expectations without changing the liability for intentional cruelty and criminal neglect. Nothing in the bill would in any way put at risk lawful and humane activities involving animals for purposes such as agriculture, hunting, trapping and research.

To be absolutely clear, the former minister of justice introduced an amendment that was adopted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The amendment states that all justifications, excuses and defences available in common law would apply to proceedings under the animal cruelty provisions. The amendment is the latest in a series of modifications to the animal cruelty provisions to address the concerns of critics.

The animal cruelty provisions in Bill C-15B were contained in a previous bill, Bill C-17, which was introduced in parliament on December 1, 1999 and died on the order paper when the federal election was called in October, 2000. The amendments had two primary objectives. First, they would have consolidated and simplified the existing law on animal cruelty by organizing offences in a more rational way and removing outdated distinctions and expressions. Second, they would have enhanced the penalty provisions by increasing current maximum sentences such as terms of imprisonment, fines, and orders prohibiting the possession of animals, and by creating a new power to order offenders to repay costs incurred by humane societies in caring for animals they leave unattended.

Bill C-17 was enthusiastically supported by thousands of Canadians. However a number of associations representing agriculture, hunting, fishing and animal research made submissions to the Minister of Justice expressing specific legal concerns about the bill, largely to the effect that the amendments could increase the risk of prosecution for people engaged in such activities. The minister benefited from the input of these groups. Although Bill C-17 would not have increased the risk of prosecution for people engaged in lawful activities, the amendments contained in Bill C-17 and replicated in Bill C-15B contain several important improvements that would make the intent and effect of the law more clear.

Such changes include: spelling out the necessary criminal state of mind with words like wilfully or recklessly instead of leaving it to the courts to interpret the proper standard; offering a definition that clearly establishes a standard of criminal negligence and removes all doubt that simple or civil negligence is not enough; adding the word unnecessary to the offence of negligently causing pain to clarify that there may be situations where the pain caused is necessary; clarifying and limiting the scope of the offence that deals with trap shooting to shooting at animals the moment they are liberated and not some time after, which would leave no room for people to argue that the section prohibited pheasant hunts in enclosed spaces; and taking animal cruelty provisions out of the part of the criminal code that deals with sexual offences and public morals and placing them in a separate part, thus clearing up the concern that it is inappropriate to group animal cruelty offences with certain other types of offences. With that we fully agree.

These improvements more clearly establish that the law deals with criminal intent and criminal neglect rather than the causing of incidental or unavoidable pain to animals in the course of lawful activities.

I suggest to the hon. members of the House that the concerns of industry have been heard. The government has done everything that could reasonably be done to accommodate those concerns.

Bill C-15B does not need any additional tinkering. It is time to act. I urge all hon. members to do the right thing and pass the bill.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address Bill C-15B one more time.

When I was explaining the legislation back home I ran into an interesting question. When I explained that it would apply to vertebrates a constituent said that would leave the Liberals out because they do not have a spine. I said that was completely unfair because they do have a spine but it is not evident sometimes.

Today Liberal members had a chance to stand up for democracy by opposing the closure motion but they let the House of Commons and the country down again. My hon. friend from Nova Scotia who spoke a moment ago said this is the 73rd time the government has invoked closure, a very anti-democratic record among governments.

I am a long time dog owner. We have had pets in our family all our lives. As someone who comes from a rural area where animals are important to our economy I almost instinctively understand how important it is to be conscious of ways to protect animals from cruelty. There is nothing more reprehensible in the world than people who abuse animals and there should be tough penalties for anyone who does. We have a golden retriever at home. He is almost part of the family. He sits on the couch and is completely spoiled. I cannot imagine people being cruel to animals. There should be tough penalties.

If the government's intention is to ensure animals are not abused why does it not simply provide tougher penalties in law to protect them? Why does it not increase enforcement? If that was the government's real intent it is what it would have done. It would not have added all these controversial changes that are causing us to question its motives.

I will explain what I mean. When the former justice minister introduced the legislation she said all activities that are legitimate today would be legitimate after the new law came in. Again, why not simply raise penalties for cruelty to animals? The government has instead brought in a number of new provisions. One of these would remove animals from the property section of the criminal code and give them a new section. A lot of people are arguing, correctly, that this would bestow a new set of rights on animals and move away from the concept of animals as property.

That is a big step. It is in a sense a dangerous step. We have already heard radical animal rights groups saying they would challenge the new law once it received royal assent to get judges to interpret it in a way that would bestow rights on animals that previously were not there. This would ensure farmers and ranchers who have engaged in what the minister called legitimate activities in the past would not be able to do so any more.

I come from an area where there is a lot of cattle. We have not just a few thousand but tens of thousands of cattle in my area. Hon. members familiar with the business of raising cattle will know that after they are born they must be dehorned so they do not hurt one another. They might get ear tags. They might be branded. They might be castrated. It is not a pleasant business. The animal feels some pain, there is no question about it. However these are legitimate traditional activities farmers and ranchers in my area engage in to make a livelihood, as a result of which people have food in the grocery store.

Unless we want to change that we had better be conscious of how we would be inviting animal rights groups to challenge the new legislation under the provisions the minister has introduced. For that reason government members across the way are completely off base in caving in and supporting Bill C-15B. It would open up all kinds of opportunities for animal rights groups to be meddlesome and cause mischief. We need to be conscious of that.

I will switch from that provision to the provision that has to do with firearms. A few minutes ago the hon. member for Parkdale--High Park, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, got up in the House said the most outrageous thing I have heard in half an hour. I say half an hour because we have heard a lot of outrageous things today in the House. She said support for the bill is unanimous in her riding. She said everyone in her riding supports the gun legislation, not just the majority. There is a standard by which all members of parliament should be bound: their statements should at least be credible. The hon. member for Parkdale--High Park probably has 200,000 constituents. To say every person in her riding supports the legislation is completely ridiculous.

The hon. member trotted out other arguments. She said a poll was done which showed an overwhelming majority of Canadians support the legislation. We should do other polls that ask questions like “When a government program gets to be so big and bureaucratic that the government cannot possibly use it for its original purpose, would you still support the legislation?” If we asked that question it would describe what has happened with the firearms registry. The gun registry was to cost $85 million, $68 million or whatever. It has gone up to $640 million or probably $700 million. Several months ago we saw the statistics of Library of Parliament researchers who were dealing with the issue in the Senate. The figure is probably $700 million now.

In gathering gun registry information the government has made mistakes on probably 50% of the applications. In other words, it has invalidated a huge number of registrations. My hon. friend from Yorkton--Melville has done a great service to the country in pointing out the foibles of the firearms registry. He has pointed to situations where people have received 59 different permits. Someone from Surrey got 59 permits for registering 17 firearms. It is completely out of control.

There have been other instances. My hon. friend from Yorkton--Melville pointed out the case of a firearms owner who had registered his firearms. He heard a knock at the door one day, saw people in balaclavas lurking outside his house, went to the door and found that a SWAT team was there to pick up his firearms. The police were under the impression he had a bunch of firearms that were not registered or legal. He produced his permits and lo and behold, it was all completely legal.

The minister and government members have argued that the point of the registry was to ensure the police knew the situation in all these homes. As in the case I have cited, when the wrong information is fed in the potential for people to be killed or hurt is absolutely astronomical. People could have SWAT teams running around with all kinds of automatic weapons outside their doors because the government has fed in the wrong information about firearms in their homes. It is completely contrary to what the government is trying to achieve.

I have touched on some of the major reasons we should oppose Bill C-15B. It is unfortunate the government is moving closure on the legislation when it is so contentious and when Canadians, especially rural Canadians, have so many legitimate concerns about its provisions.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill at third reading.

It is time for the House to act on the will of Canadians. Legislation that would update animal cruelty provisions and provide enhanced penalties for animal abusers has been before the House in one form or another since December 1, 1999. That is two and a half years during which there have been numerous opportunities for organizations from a broad spectrum of interests to come forward and make their views known. They have shared their views with the Department of Justice, members of parliament, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the media and other members of the public. There has been a full and comprehensive debate on the issue of the changes that must be made to modernize the animal cruelty provisions.

During that two and a half years the former justice minister listened carefully to the concerns of all Canadians, including industry. In fact, to be absolutely clear that criminal liability for intentional cruelty and criminal neglect had not changed, the former justice minister made several accommodations to industry when the animal cruelty provisions were reintroduced in Bill C-15 after an election was called and Bill C-17 died on the order paper. The accommodations did not change the legal tests for liability but provided further clarification about the elements of the cruelty offences.

After Bill C-15 received second reading in the House of Commons on September 26, 2001, it was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with the direction that the committee split the bill into two parts.

Bill C-15B contains the provisions regarding cruelty to animals and firearms. The committee heard from a wide variety of groups with diverse views on the issue of animal cruelty. At the committee hearings the Criminal Lawyers' Association confirmed that removal of the animal cruelty provision out of the property section would not cause accused persons to lose any available defences. The association did indicate however that if there was a desire to make this absolutely clear one of two options was possible: either make an express reference to subsection 429(2) of the criminal code which outlines defences of legal justification, excuse or colour of right; or specifically confirm application of the common law defences under subsection 8(3). Again, in the interests of accommodation to reassure critics of the bill, the government introduced a motion adopted by the committee to confirm application of subsection 8(3).

Following the suggestion of the lawyers association one would have thought opposition critics of the bill would agree that all accommodations could be made. They have been made without changing the test of legal liability. Unhappily, with the notable exception of the New Democratic Party, this does not appear to be the case. Critics among the opposition parties want more.

I take this opportunity to look at their position more closely. These critics have been clear that they are not supporting an exemption for industry. They maintain that all persons should be subject to the animal cruelty provisions. Yet, what they are asking for appears to be an exemption in anything but name.

Some members of the opposition parties maintain that the defences in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code provide them with a justification for their industry practices, even if those industry practices cause unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. They maintain that these defences effectively give industry the protection that anything they do pursuant to lawful purpose is itself lawful. This is simply not the law.

Equally inaccurate is the position maintained by some hon. members that the cruelty provisions prohibit the infliction of any pain or suffering and that it is the defences that legitimize the infliction of pain. This position completely ignores the tests for liability for cruelty that have been in the criminal code since 1953. The issue of defences does not even arise until after the crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the infliction of pain or suffering was unnecessary.

The test for unnecessary pain or suffering is clear in case law. The courts have recognized that avoidable pain is unnecessary. Pain is avoidable if there are equally accessible, reasonable, and affordable practices available to achieve the same lawful purpose.

What is interesting is that opposition critics maintain their position even though they have cited not a single case of support for their position and have been unable to identify any relevant offences under subsection 429(2) which would not be available as a common law defence subsection 8(3) of the criminal code.

I do not believe for a moment that industry wants its activities exempted from the application of the criminal code. Those members of the opposition who suggest that industry has this protection currently or who argue that somehow lawful industry practices would become unlawful after the bill is passed are misrepresenting the state of current law.

No one has been exempted from the application of the animal cruelty law. This has never been the law in Canada and the government is not proposing to change this law now.

One of the most basic notions in Canadian criminal law is that the law applies to everyone. Canadians have made it clear that they support a law which imposes at least a minimum standard of behaviour on everyone. It is time for this House to answer the expectations of Canadians and move on this legislation.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for all members to take the last opportunity that we have today to speak to Bill C-15B. Both aspects of the bill, the firearms part of it and certainly the cruelty to animals part of it, are problematic.

The first thing that needs to be said about the legislation is that at noon today the government decided we would have no more democratic debate on the bill and it brought in time allocation. It brought in time allocation I believe for the 76th time in the history of this government. It has used time allocation more than any previous government.

The government may say that all Canadians are in favour of the bill but nothing could be further from the truth. I watched all the Liberal members stand like trained seals today and vote in favour of time allocation. I believe there was actually one who did vote against it. That is absolutely scandalous on their part.

I believe the Ontario Liberal caucus was going to defend the interests of farmers, of rural Canadians and of people who harvest animals or participate in animal husbandry. Somehow or other I am quite certain those interests were not defended today when the government voted for time allocation on this legislation.

At 7 o'clock tonight the debate will be over, the bill will be voted on and then it will be moved along in the process. That is not democracy at work. That is not changing the way this particular piece of legislation is written.

Let us be quite honest and blunt about this. This legislation on cruelty to animals has not been updated or renewed since 1892. It is time for the legislation to be modernized. It is time that it reflected the beliefs and ideals of citizens in the 21st century.

However, somehow we have a group of people sitting on their hands who are not trying to do that at all. Specific parts of the bill that are extremely problematic and parts of it are just fine. No one believes that individuals, whether they be owners of animals or not, should be able to, in any way, shape or form, harm or intentionally cause pain to animals.

At the same time, what we have here now is a definition of animal that even all the Liberals are not happy with. Section 182.1 states the definition of an animal.

In this Part, “animal” means a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

That is a pretty broad brush stroke. I do not know exactly what is not covered here but I will assume that everything is covered: reptiles, invertebrates, fish, all vertebrates, all domestic animals, insects, spiders, mosquitos, multi-celled organisms.

The government should take a look at the legislation that it is about to force down the throats of Canadians. It says that any animal or any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

It is punishable under the Criminal Code of Canada. Everyone commits an offence who willfully or recklessly causes, or permits to be caused, unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal; kills or permits an animal to be killed brutally or viciously regardless of whether the animal dies immediately.

We do not have a proper definition of animal or what unnecessary pain and suffering is. We certainly do not have a definition of how animals can be killed. What is the definition of brutally or viciously? It can be a totally different definition between two people. People who are extremely sympathetic to animals would say that anything that causes the death of an animal is brutal and vicious.

Somehow or another there has to be a modicum of common sense applied to this piece of legislation. There is absolutely no room here for traditional harvesting and animal husbandry practices. I suspect that if we were to ask the majority of people, especially urbanites, if a gunshot to the heart of a big game animal was brutal and vicious, they would classify that as definitely yes. Does that mean that we would outlaw all deer, rabbit and partridge hunters? It could. If it is not clear, and it is not defined, and it is not obvious, it should not be there. That is the job of legislation.

No one, in any way, shape or form can do anything but condemn unnecessary cruelty to animals. I have heard it time and again. No one is listening over there. What about regular animal husbandry practices, the simple castration of lambs and docking tails? There is a reason why we cut the tails off lambs and young piglets. It is simple. It is so that they do not start biting at one another, getting a little blood going out, getting into a frenzy and killing one another. It is not because we are trying to be mean to them.

There are all kinds of regular, everyday animal husbandry practices that are done carefully so that they cause a minimum amount of pain, which would be condemned under this piece of legislation as unnecessary, brutal, vicious and causing unnecessary pain and suffering. It is absolutely incorrect. Do not tell me this does not threaten farmers because it does.

Take that fact on top of the fact that it is an omnibus piece of legislation. There are two totally separate pieces of legislation here, one on gun control and one on cruelty to animals. My first reaction was that we need to update the cruelty to animals legislation. We already know we cannot trust the Liberals on the gun control legislation, but we do need to update the cruelty to animals legislation. Unfortunately neither one will get done now.

We have an important piece of legislation like cruelty to animals that we need to take a look at. We need to sit down in a reasoned, rational debate and put in laws that protect animals when they need protection. These two pieces of legislation in one bill are not connected at all. They are thrown in almost as an afterthought, and neither one of them will do the job. One sets out to do and take away the credibility of the other. If people believe in gun control, then the animal section should not be in here; if people believe in doing something about cruelty to animals, the gun control section should not be in here. This is poorly crafted legislation.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak today to the provisions of Bill C-15B, an act to amend the criminal code with respect to cruelty to animals and firearms and also to amend the Firearms Act.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak especially in light of the considerable misinformation that has been stated about the purpose and effect of the animal cruelty provisions in Bill C-15B. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a couple of very important points about the legislation.

The first point is that the characterization of animal cruelty as a property offence belies its true nature as a crime of violence. Canada lags behind the rest of the western world in recognizing that society has an interest in protecting animals from abuse, quite apart from their status as property.

The assertion that creating a separate part of the criminal code to deal with animal cruelty somehow changes the status of animals as property represents a profound misunderstanding of the rules of statutory interpretation as well as of the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. Bill C-15B is an exercise of the federal government's criminal law power. There is nothing in Bill C-15B that would in any way affect the status of animals as property.

Second, I would like to recognize the research that increasingly shows a link between animal cruelty and violence against humans. There appears to be a high correlation between cruelty to animals and child and spousal abuse. Also, there appears to be a link between animal cruelty in childhood and subsequent violence against humans in later years.

It is time for the law to recognize the true character of animal cruelty offences and to properly reflect upon the seriousness with which this crime ought to be treated. The increased penalty provisions of Bill C-15B are extremely important in conveying society's condemnation of brutality toward animals. I know the hon. members support increased penalties for animal cruelty and in this they are joined by a strong endorsement of a huge majority of Canadians and almost a unanimous support in my own constituency of Parkdale—High Park.

A third point is clarifying what the cruelty provisions are really about. These provisions are not, and I emphasize are not, a clever attempt by the federal government to regulate industry practices. The animal cruelty provisions have co-existed with various instruments regulating industry practices since the criminal code was first enacted in 1892. They will continue to do so after Bill C-15B is passed.

All Canadians must respect the minimum standard of behaviour required by the animal cruelty provisions in the criminal code. This is true whether they use animals for commercial purposes, recreational purposes or own them as pets. This is the law now and this is the law that will continue to apply after Bill C-15B is passed.

The test for liability for unnecessary pain, suffering and injury has also not been changed, nor has the test for criminal neglect. What will change if Bill C-15B is passed is a law that will be set out in a clear, concise manner and will clearly distinguish between offences involving intentional cruelty and those which address criminal neglect.

The complexity of the law will be reduced by the removal of complex deeming provisions. Outdated distinctions between different types of animals, for example, cattle versus other types of animals, will also be removed.

The House has the opportunity to modernize and update the animal cruelty provisions without increasing the liability of persons involved in the legitimate use of animals.

I urge hon. members to see past the scare tactics that have been used in an attempt to discredit this important legislation. It is time for parliament to answer the expectations of Canadians and to pass Bill C-15B now.

I would like to turn now to the proposed administrative improvements to the Canadian 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 through the licensing of firearm owners and firearm registration.

Canadians remain steadfast in their support of this very important public safety initiative. I can tell the House that in my riding there is unanimous support for the legislation.

The government's approach to preventing firearm death, injury and crime is a clear reflection of Canadian values and principles. Over the past decade, poll after poll has shown that 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 last year shows that the majority of the supporters of all political parties in the House support the firearms program.

Our national investment in this program is already paying off in terms of public safety benefits and in compliance. While Canada's firearm program will not be completely implemented until January 1, 2003, it is already making a significant contribution to public safety.

These are measures aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of people who represent a danger to themselves or others. Since December 1, 1998, more than 7,000 permits have been either denied or revoked by public security authorities. This figure is 50 times the total number that were revoked in the last five years of the previous firearm control system.

With the implementation of a number of initiatives to simplify administration and make the program more user friendly for firearms, Canadians are now complying with the law. There are now 2.1 million individuals in the firearms database, achieving a 90% compliance rate with licensing, and several months before the deadline, two-thirds of licensed firearm owners have already participated in registration.

The amendments proposed in Bill C-15B build on the success of the firearms program to date and 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 will 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. This is good news for Canadians and the sooner these administrative changes can be implemented the better.

Frankly, with only months left before the legislated deadline of January 1, 2003 for full implementation of this program, any further delay would be a complete disservice to Canadians.

We have already heard and carefully considered the views of various individuals and organizations over the last several years and, most recently, the testimony that was heard by the committee last year. 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 combines the screening of applicants, tracking of firearms and minimum mandatory sentencing to help deter, prevent and prosecute firearm crimes in Canada.

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

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 indeed client friendly.

Canadians expect us to get on with it.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a last opportunity to speak to Bill C-15B. Throughout its long journey through the House of Commons I have struggled in the background with the definition of animal in the legislation and tried to change it, unsuccessfully, I regret to say. I am hoping that when the bill goes on to the Senate that the senators will take some of my concerns to heart and perhaps question closely the officials and the minister on why they have gone for a definition of animal that reads something to the effect that:

...“animal” means a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

It is that latter bit, “any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain” that troubles me. That extends the definition of animal to include just about every living creature. Just about any living creature from an amoeba to a whale has the capacity to feel pain.

I think the intention and the feeling of the public is that the animal cruelty legislation should be directed towards animals that at least have a high order nervous system of the type that can feel pain and suffering. Cruelty is all about alleviating suffering, not simply trying to prevent a natural physical reaction.

This issue of the definition of animal was tackled by the consultative committee in the justice department way back in 1998 when it sent around to various interest groups and other organizations a consultative paper that invited responses on a number of questions. Overwhelmingly, organizations responded by saying that the definition of animal should be limited to animals that are non-human vertebrates. The reason is that obviously a vertebrate has a brain and a higher order nervous and mental system, and it is capable of feeling pain.

Instead however, the officials who drafted the legislation elected to choose the broadest definition possible. The definition that is before us would allow litigation based on any type of animal that may be experiencing pain, be it a worm on a hook or a lobster in a cooking pot or anything imaginable, a jellyfish. I know this is hard to imagine, but jellyfish do have a reaction when they are poked. It does not mean that they are suffering when they are taken and thrown on the beach. This definition would encompass that.

I have corresponded with the minister on a number of occasions on this. The argument back, I am sorry to say, has not been, shall we say, as exhaustive as we would like. The reaction back has been to say that there are other jurisdictions in the United States, a few state legislatures or states, such as Arkansas, that have a similar definition for animal that is just as broad.

The legislation we have before us is criminal code legislation. It is an amendment to one of the most powerful and important legal instruments in the land. Because a few isolated states in the United States have a broad definition of the word animal, not federal legislation, but state legislation, should not be a cause for adopting the same definition.

Another argument was presented by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association who wrote to the justice minister that it was very supportive of the changes that define animal for the first time as a vertebrate other than a human being and any other animal that has a capacity to feel pain.

That is supposed to be a letter from this association. However this was correspondence in the year 2001. If we go back to the files, what we find is that the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, when it replied to the original consultative paper in 1998, was very concerned that the definition of animal be limited to non-human vertebrates. In that sense it was entirely in conformity with all the other organizations, the majority of competent organizations that did not support broadening the definition in the way that we have before us.

I thought the reply from the minister suggesting that the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association was supportive of the definition was a little bit ingenuous because originally it wanted the definition to be non-human vertebrates and only elected to have the broader definition if, I have the correspondence here, it had the assurance from the justice department that this definition would not lead to interference or litigation involving the use of animals in a lawful and proper fashion. As a matter of fact I have quote here. It said:

Our association's support is based on our interpretation and expectation that the amendments will in no way alter or criminalize accepted activities in the treatment or use of animals.

These include practices such as in agriculture, hunting, fishing, trapping, animal research and so forth.

It was conditional. The difficulty, and where the pith of the problem is, is that the government cannot guarantee that there will not be litigation based on this broad definition. The government can only say that the courts will decide. This is where the flaw in the argument comes. The difficulty is that so many of these radical animal rights groups obtain their fundraising by confrontation before the courts. By allowing the broadest possible definition of animal to go forward in the legislation, the government is inviting endless litigation which will be the source of fundraising for various animal rights organizations for years to come.

It represents a naivete to think that simply and purely regarding a definition in legislation only in legal terms and not allowing for the social consequences it will have is a failure to properly inform the justice minister. I feel that what is missing, and indeed why we have these debates in the House, is that often when officials look at the definition of legislation, as do the courts, they often look at it in isolation. It is this place that should sound the warning, as indeed the opposition has on several occasions, that we want animal rights legislation that genuinely protects animals that are capable of suffering from unnecessary cruelty.

The legislation will do that but unfortunately, with this very broad definition, it will do more. It will give the opportunity to various organizations to bring nuisance court cases and challenges before the courts. Yes, we can fight them and yes, we will win them, but it will cost the government money to fight these cases because they will go all the way up to the supreme court. The people who will win will not be the public. It will be those who stand to profit from raising the issue of animal welfare. Animal welfare is an important thing that we are all concerned about, but it is not something on which organizations should be allowed to make money.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate concerning Bill C-15B, an act to amend the criminal code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

The purpose of the bill is to reintroduce the proposed amendments to the cruelty of animals provision of the criminal code while consolidating animal cruelty offences that were introduced in Bill C-17 with a few changes, some of which we consider improvements and others which are of concern to Canadians.

Among the improvements are increased maximum penalties for persons found guilty of cruelty to animals, those who act willfully and recklessly in killing or harming animals. However, with a widened definition of the term animal, it creates a number of concerns for those who are dependent on the harvesting and husbandry of animals for their livelihood.

The new provisions would not prevent legitimate activities from being carried out. The law would only proscribe illegal activities. The problem is, and therefore the concern, these new provisions would narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activities. Why does the minister not simply raise the penalties for committing animal offences?

Problems arise with the definition of animal in the bill. The proposed definition of animal in Bill C-15 would include non-human vertebrates and all animals having the capacity to feel pain. This new definition would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never before been provided that kind of protection. This definition is too wide and would open the door for the prosecution of those who earn their livelihood working with animals. Our key concern is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection presently afforded to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices.

The phrase “legal justification or excuse and with colour of right” in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence. The parliamentary secretary to the minister attempted to assure the justice committee that it is the government's intention that the defences in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code would continue to apply to cruelty to animal offences and that those defences would be implicit in the new legislation. Both the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc members moved amendments that would have made these defences explicit and the government members opposed them.

However in the new bill animal cruelty provisions would be moved out of the general classification of property offences and into a section of their own which would remove these provisions outside the scope of that protection. By moving the animal cruelty section out of the range of property offences would emphasize animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. This is a significant alteration in the underlying principle of the legislation, and could elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts.

Our concern is that the legislation could open up the possibility that farmers, sporting groups and scientific researchers would be unjustly prosecuted. As a result, animal rights groups in Canada would use the new legislation as the basis for such prosecutions. They have already stated their intentions to do so. Liz White, a director with Animal Alliance of Canada, has said:

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.

The people who are most concerned about the bill are the agricultural groups, farmers, industry workers and medical researchers. They do not condone intentional animal abuse or neglect in any way. It is fundamentally important to the success of their livelihoods that they treat their animals with the care and respect that the bill intends to afford animals.

Moving the animal cruelty section out of the ambit of property offences to a new section on its own is seen by many as emphasizing animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. This significant alteration and the underlying principle of the legislation is something that needs to be carefully considered.

The Canadian Alliance asked government members to retain the cruelty to animals provision in the property offences section of the criminal code but they refused. Many groups are concerned that elevating the status of animals from property could have significant and detrimental implications for many legitimate animal dependent businesses. Our party supports increasing penalties for cruelty to animal offences. However we do not support the widening scope of what currently constitutes a criminal offence against animals.

The amendments to the Firearms Act are of an administrative nature and would simplify the registration process and reduce costs by incorporating information technology. My Canadian Alliance colleagues and I are opposed to these provisions on the basis that we have long held that the act be repealed entirely. We believe there should be severe mandatory penalties for the criminal use of any weapon. We are committed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals as a necessary part of making our communities safer. We would replace the current firearms law with a practical firearms control system that would be cost effective and would respect the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly.

I support increasing penalties for cruelty to animal offences but I cannot support widening the scope and definition of what currently constitutes a criminal offence. This legislation would influence and cause the courts to interpret such offences in a different way which may have a detrimental effect and implications on farmers, hunters and agricultural producers.

The minister amended the bill to provide a screening mechanism for indictable offences. That would allow a provincial court judge to prescreen such prosecutions and decide whether they should proceed. The Canadian Alliance in no way condones intentional acts of cruelty to animals and supports increasing the penalties relating to such acts. However, while cruelty to animals cannot be tolerated, the criminal law should not be used as a tool by special interest groups to destroy the legitimate farming and related food production industry.

We will strive to ensure that the legitimate use of animals by farmers, sportsmen and medical researchers is protected.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill, as I do have a number of rural constituents although my riding is now close to 70% urban. Certainly I know that 30% well and in fact I am part of that constituency.

I want to start off by expressing my total displeasure with the use of closure in the House. Closure has been used 70 to 80 times since I have been here. It used to be that the government really thought about doing something like that. In fact a government could easily fall at the next election because of the use of closure. The government now uses closure in the House like we change our socks and thinks nothing of it. I hope the Canadian people are now seeing what they have because of not watching and keeping an eye on the government and providing pressure to keep it from doing this.

As far as the bill is concerned, obviously all of us would be opposed to any kind of cruelty to animals. We have to really differentiate between what we mean by cruelty and what we mean by strict agricultural practices.

The policy of the Canadian Alliance is pretty clear on that. The Canadian Alliance in no way condones intentional acts of cruelty toward animals and supports increasing the penalties for offences relating to such acts. However, while cruelty to animals cannot be tolerated, the criminal law should not be used as a tool by special interest groups to destroy the legitimate farming and related food production industry. We will strive to ensure that the legitimate use of animals by farmers, sportsmen and medical researchers is protected.

That pretty much sums up our position and where we stand. Anyone who portrays it any other way obviously has not listened to the words that I have just said and that our party and all our members stand for. Sometimes I even think that probably Air Canada is behind the bill because it certainly is opposed to serving any kind of meat products on its planes. I think most of us are getting tired of vegetarian pizza, vegetarian omelettes, vegetarian fajitas and all those things.

Let us talk about the bill itself. The critical point is that this is an assault on agriculture. The farmers see it as nothing else. They see an ongoing assault. We have to remember that farmers are 1.9 million Canadians creating about $26 billion in exports. In the province that I come from we have hundreds of trucks heading south with cattle every day to serve the huge market in the U.S., which adds directly to our GDP and is so important to our standard of living and what we all have in this country.

This attack on the agriculture industry has been going on for a long time. I suppose it has been going on from the beginning of the country's existence. There are all kinds of examples. We could talk about the Canadian Wheat Board. Certainly the people in my constituency feel that while it is an agency that was needed in the 1940s, it is now subject to real questions about marketing and about whether a bureaucracy, a monopoly, is the way to sell grain products. They feel that it is an assault on their rights and particularly when it only applies to the prairie provinces. It does not apply to farmers in Ontario, Quebec and so on. They definitely see that as an attack on the west.

As well, of course, and more recently, we had Bill C-68. I received 13,000 letters in my riding telling me to vote against that legislation. Obviously 13,000 letters on anything tells us what they thought about it and obviously they have been proven right. It does not work. Licensing and registering farmers, ranchers and duck hunters is not going to work and it is certainly not going to make any difference to the crime situation.

Then there is the bill that I have been involved with as the environment critic, Bill C-5. Again the people of my riding feel that is a direct assault on them as individuals and as farmers. They feel that the bill has to include compensation. If it is in fact going to affect their livelihood and their way of life, they obviously have to be compensated.

Bill C-15B is just another example of their concerns not being taken into consideration. They do not want anything special. They want to be treated as an industry that does the very best job. I must say that most of the farmers and ranchers I know care about those animals a lot. Those animals are their livelihood. They really care about those animals that do not have the calves in the spring or for some reason have been injured out in the field. They will go a long way to preserve those animals. Sure, there are practices that we may not necessarily like. Castration is certainly not a pleasant thing and neither are dehorning and those kinds of things, but they are necessary agricultural practices. The concern is that the bill will now impact on that industry. We have to remember that it is an industry providing a livelihood for a lot of Canadians and that it adds to our GDP.

As well, our farmers look at the subsidies out there, which Canada objects to. The recent OECD figures show that a U.S. wheat farmer gets 49% of his income from the government. An EU farmer gets 43% of his income from the government. In Canada the farmer gets 17% of his income from the government. Obviously they look at that and say that the government really does not care about a guaranteed food supply, that it really does not care about the agricultural industry. If the government did, it would be doing more to help farmers get over what are considerably tough times for them.

The member who spoke previously mentioned the rodeo. I do not know how many members of the House have been to a rodeo. I cannot say that I am a great fan of rodeo. I do not follow the rodeo around. I do not know how many points the people get. When I was in business I used to do a national finals rodeo tour down to Las Vegas and I saw the thousands of people who paid thousands of dollars to watch rodeo. I know that on every weekend in my constituency from now until October there will be a rodeo somewhere in my riding. Rodeo is a way of life. Those people live that very existence and it is part of the cultural base of western Canada.

I would love to take every member in the House to Daines Rodeo, just north of Innisfail, Alberta, so that they could get the feeling of being Canadian. There are Canadian flags everywhere. Girls carrying Canadian flags come in on their horses. It is quite a show. Calves get roped, but those calves almost look like they are smiling. They are used to it. They are bred for that. The horses are bred for that . There is a very specialized industry around the rodeo. It is entertainment. We can watch the NHL hockey games and maybe we think they are kind of brutal. Maybe they should be outlawed too, with no checking. The NHL could be a powder-puff league with no-hit hockey. Maybe that is what we should have. It is rough, but that is the sport. The first time I saw rugby being played in Australia, my God, I thought the players were going to kill each other.

What we really have here is an assault on the agricultural community. A rural caucus member said there is no problem, that the bill will be fixed in the Senate. That is a cop-out. That is giving in to pressure from the whip and saying what they think people want to hear. I hope that people in the riding of Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey will not be conned by this sort of garbage with members saying they will vote for the bill because it will be fixed in the Senate. That is not the way to be a good legislator and it is sure not the way one should act in this House.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my hon. colleague for Yukon that I respect him greatly as a person. I want him to know that the points I will make in my speech are valid points, and they are not being made just by me. They represent much of the opposition to the bill as it presently stands.

The bill before us today was introduced and discussed by the Liberal spin masters on many different occasions but I still do not think the government has it right. Bill C-15B reintroduces the proposed amendments to the cruelty to animals provision of the criminal code that were introduced in Bill C-17 during the last parliament with certain changes.

However, despite the minor improvements to the legislation, many people who are dependent on the harvesting and husbandry of animals for their livelihood still have a number of concerns with the bill.

One concern with the bill is that the definition of animal is too broad. The proposed definition of “animal” in Bill C-15B includes non-human vertebrates and “all animals having the capacity to feel pain”. This new definition extends legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never before been provided that kind of protection.

Another key concern is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection presently afforded to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. The phrase “legal justification, excuse or colour of right” in section 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence.

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 of the scope of that very protection.

Moving the animal cruelty section out of the range of property offences to a new section in its own right, emphasizes animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. I think that is the big difference that we need to be clear on here. This is a significant alteration in the underlying principles of the legislation and could elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts.

This legislation could open up, for instance, the possibility that farmers, sporting groups and scientific researchers will be unjustly prosecuted. Animal rights groups in Canada will certainly use this new legislation as the basis for such prosecution and in fact have already stated their intentions to do exactly that.

Liz White, the director of legislative revision of the Animal Alliance of Canada, has been quoted as saying:

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.

Those are not my words. Those are the words of one of the directors of the Animal Alliance of Canada, an animal rights group. Animal rights groups are already gearing up to test this law. We hear reports of them harassing feedlot owners, cattle sales ring owners, rodeo workers and even veterinarians about possible cruelty to animals. Those are ordinary Canadians who make their livelihood working with animals. The bill opens up this legal Pandora's box which will cost Canadians much down the road.

The former federal justice minister has offered assurances that what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities will be lawful when the bill receives royal assent. However the problem is that these new provisions arguably narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activities.

We have all been witness to time after time when we were told by the government “don't worry, it will never happen that way, just trust us”. In the present climate of the government in this country today, that is a statement that just will not wash with the Canadian public.

The long and the short of it is, unless it is clearly spelled out in the legislation, I do not trust the legislation. I believe the government has passed legislation before that will have devastating effects on the future of this country and yet may not be seen for years to come. This legislation is just one more example of that.

As I turn to the second part of the bill I note that the government has failed dramatically in its efforts to curb violence through its ill-fated gun policy. In spite of the overwhelming evidence that the Liberal gun registry has failed miserably both administratively and financially, the government blithely carries. The emperor has no clothes and yet no one on that side of the House is prepared to state the facts as they really are.

The Hells Angels think that the gun laws are just fine. Just ask one of their leaders who was recently convicted of a number of crimes and was known to be directly associated with the most elite division of this infamous motorcycle gang and yet successfully applied for a firearm acquisition certificate. Yet the minister stands before the House expecting to be believed when he states that the registration program is working just fine.

My colleagues in the Canadian Alliance have stated before and I will state again that we support increasing penalties for cruelty to animal offences but we do not support widening the scope of what currently constitutes a criminal offence. New animal cruelty legislation may cause the courts to interpret such offences in a different light. This could have significant and detrimental implications for farmers, hunters and other agricultural producers who are dependent on animals for their livelihood. If it is not the minister's intention to change what is lawful today, he should simply raise the penalties for existing animal cruelty offences.

The Canadian Alliance in no way condones intentional acts of cruelty toward animals and supports increasing the penalties for offences relating to such acts. However new animal cruelty legislation may cause the courts to interpret such offences in a different light. This could have significant implication on all those who are dependent on animals for their livelihoods.

With regard to firearms, we believe that there should be severe mandatory penalties for the criminal use of any weapon. We are committed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals as a necessary part of making our communities safer.

Certainly if we ever become government, and it may not be long, we will replace the current firearms law with a practical firearms control system that is cost effective and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly.

In closing, I believe we need to have a strong dose of reality injected into both this debate and this bill. Let us not get caught up in the hyperbole that can elevate any debate beyond the realistic to the surreal. All Canadians would agree that cruelty to animals is wrong and that realistic gun control should enhance the safety of Canadians. However, if we do not define the limits of the legislation in a careful and reasoned manner, keeping in mind the need to have realistic applications of these changes, then we are only making life more difficult for everyone and unhelpful to anyone.

For those reasons and the lack of reasoned ability to apply these new changes to the laws of the land, I will be opposing, on behalf of my constituents, Bill C-15B.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, this speech has not been given by anyone else. I have been making it up to refute some of the invalid points the opposition has made with respect to the bill.

I will speak to an aspect of Bill C-15B which has not been the subject of recent discussion and has not been given enough emphasis in terms of the importance of the legislation. While taking animal cruelty offences more seriously would be entirely consistent with society's moral condemnation of the abuse and neglect of animals, an even greater societal interest would be served by the provisions of Bill C-15B. There is increasing scientific evidence of a link between animal cruelty and subsequent violent offences against humans, particularly in the context of domestic violence. A number of studies in the United States have clearly shown the link. Recent Canadian studies have also put out interesting findings.

Last year a study was conducted of 100 women entering two shelters for abused women and children in Calgary. Some 65% of the participants were either pet owners or had been pet owners in the last 12 months. More than half who owned pets said their abusers had threatened to kill or hurt or had killed or hurt their pets. More than 25% of the pet owning participants said they delayed their decision to seek shelter from violence for themselves and their children because they feared for the safety of the animals they left behind.

One American study has noted that while most animal abusers will not commit sensational murders, serial killers almost invariably have histories of animal abuse earlier in their lives. Many notorious serial killers including Albert DeSalvo, the Boston strangler, have had histories of animal abuse that started in their youth. There is increasing evidence of a link between animal abuse early in life and subsequent violence against humans. As one report noted, the literature suggests an association between a pattern of cruelty to animals in childhood or adolescence and a pattern of dangerous and recurrent aggression against people at a later age.

One of the first formal studies in this area examined the life histories of 84 prison inmates in the United States. The research found that 75% of those charged with violent crimes had an early record of cruelty to animals, fire setting and bedwetting. A later study of psychiatric patients who repeatedly tortured dogs and cats found that all of them had high levels of aggression toward people and had also been victims of brutal parental punishment as children.

The link between animal cruelty and the abuse or neglect of children has been examined in other studies as well. In one study of 57 families being treated by local child welfare authorities because of incidents of child abuse, pets had been abused in 88% of the families in which children had been physically abused. In two-thirds of the cases the abusive parent had injured or killed the family pet. In the remaining one-third of cases it was the children who had abused the pet. In describing animal abuse as symptomatic of family dysfunction, one study notes that the research strongly suggests animal abuse is not the result of some personality flaw in the abuser but a symptom of a deeply disturbed family.

Insight into the dynamics of animal cruelty offences can be gained from research that examines the reasons given by offenders for their actions. In examining violent offenders with a history of animal abuse, researchers have found that some offenders resort to cruelty to control the animal's behaviour. Others have hurt or killed an animal to retaliate for an action by the animal such as barking. A third motivation is prejudice toward specific types of animals, most commonly cats.

I hope people understand that there are ramifications of the bill in terms of determining that cruelty to animals is an offence of violence. It would be of benefit to our society to realize the seriousness of it in that respect.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I am glad the hon. member has raised the issue because it is the next part of my speech. Not only the hunters but the trappers, fishermen and even the farmers in my riding are very happy that the rural caucus has done a lot of work to make sure the bill would not harm any practices that have been allowed in the past. I compliment the hon. member for Huron—Bruce for making these points and bringing them forward to ensure Bill C-15B is totally acceptable and would not harm the ways of life that are so important to the trappers, fishers, hunters and even the farmers of the Yukon.

Although the debate has gone on so long it is disappointing because no new points have been brought up. However I will again refute the two or three points brought up in criticism of the bill. First, some argue that under Bill C-15B a whole bunch of frivolous lawsuits might be undertaken against innocent people who could not afford the time or effort. This is not true. Cases would need to go to a hearing. Cases brought forward by private individuals trying to do something vexatious or frivolous would be screened out at that stage. Almost every offence would be a hybrid offence which means it would fall under this category. The only exception would be if someone broke the law by owning an animal when he or she was not supposed to.

Second, an unfounded complaint is that the bill would expand the definition of animals too far. I am sure some members of the opposition support preventing cruelty to animals, but some are arguing Bill C-15B would catch all sorts of animals that were not included before. However there was no definition before so anything was eligible. Bill C-15B would limit the number of animals the law would apply to.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about a couple of the points members of the opposition party, the Alliance, made recently.

First, they suggested we propose an amendment in the House instead of in the Senate that would help rural Canada. The member should understand legislative procedure better. We cannot propose an amendment here because an amendment and a sub-amendment have already been proposed. It is not possible procedurally. He should be aware of that. He should also be aware that when an amendment goes before the Senate it must come back here to be approved anyway. Amendments must be debated and approved by parliament before they are agreed to.

Second, the same member tried to create a myth that we would not be able to do research on animals after the bill was passed. The case law with respect to the issue is obvious. The Ménard case says the application of the law would be the same under Bill C-15B as it is now and that research would be quite appropriate.

The purpose of Bill C-15B is to consolidate, simplify and modernize the existing provisions to increase maximum penalties for cruelty to animals and take care of injured animals. I do not think anyone in the opposition would disagree with increasing penalties for people who abuse animals so the issue is taken more seriously. I think they would have a hard time with their consciences if they voted against increasing penalties for those who are cruel to animals.

I have had a lot of input from those in my riding who work in the humane society and others who strongly support the bill. It has been a large percentage of the input I have had on the issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member who preceded me as well as my colleague from Châteauguay for his participation and work during consideration of this bill. I know he also works very hard on the justice committee.

In my view, the bill boils down to the simple issue of whether we can accomplish all that we set out to do in the protection of animals and still leave the bill in such a way that it protects and provides assurances to legitimate animals users, and by that I mean farmers, hunters, furriers and researchers?

Can we leave all these new protections within the property sections, within the existing sections of the criminal code that provide those colour of right excuses that have long been held very dearly by those individuals in the group I described? The answer to that is yes.

It was interesting that the member for Provencher pointed out that there may be some assurances that were given that might explain the voting that took place here today by rural members of the Liberal caucus. Previously they expressed outrage and seemed quite prepared to vote against their government if the bill was to remain in its current configuration.

That may very well be and we may see some of the discussion that took place on the floor of the House repeated on the floor of the other place. I suspect that may be the case but the behaviour here today was bizarre. I do not say this lightly, but members of the Liberal caucus today who were so adamant before in standing against the government on the legislation did appear a bit like hand shy, whipped puppies when it came to the vote today. There is real concern that the cave-in, which took place, may be the result of a behind the scenes deal.

It goes without saying that Bill C-15B does have some legitimate and positive changes that would bring about a greater sentencing range for those convicted of cruelty to animal offences. In my view and the view of members of the Progressive Conservative Party, there is a need in legislation currently to up the ante and punish those who intentionally abuse or neglect animals.

Cruelty to animals is an issue that has received significant publicity in recent years and months. Psychologists are drawing parallels between children's cruelty to animals and their subsequent cruelty and behaviour toward other humans.

While I am supportive of many elements of the legislation dealing with crimes against animals, there are still legitimate concerns that stem from the decision to remove the current criminal code provisions dealing with animal cruelty from the property sections of the criminal code and create, in essence, a new section.

It was suggested that a new section could also have brought with it the existing protections found in part XI of the criminal code. Those sections permit acts to be done with legal justification, excuse or with colour of right. They go back to the very origins of the drafting of the sections pertaining to animals that were contained in those property definitions.

There is still an opportunity to get it right and to get it right in the first instance. The importance of having those protections is clear. There is a real and legitimate fear on the part of animal users and participants in businesses that require the use of animals and practices that might be perceived by many from an ivory tower perspective to be cruel. I am talking about legitimate practices such as branding, castration, methods of slaughter and methods of medical and scientific research that have a very legitimate practice. Those of the feint of heart and those who may be a bit squeamish about this often sit down and enjoy a nice steak or sport their leather belts and boots. That is the reality.

Providing those protections under the property sections of the code permit acts to be done legitimately within certain parameters that have long been respected, respecting the need to be using safe and fair practices when it comes to animals.

I share the concerns of many Canadians and many members when it comes to definition of animal, involving any animal that has the capacity to feel pain. There was some concession made by the previous minister of justice. There was a spirit I suppose of co-operation and perhaps reasonableness when the current minister's predecessor heard from many stakeholders on this issue.

The previous bill was careful to insert the words “wilful cruelty” and “unnecessary pain and suffering” in the drafting of the bill, yet there was an intransigence when it came to the changing of the issue of property.

Members have expressed concern on behalf of stakeholders and their constituents over the lengthy, protracted and costly litigation that could result in both the criminal and civil courts. The potential private prosecutions could be costly and paralyzing. We all know that when a dispute disintegrates into this type of litigation it can literally bankrupt the participants. It can bankrupt the individual who stands accused. Regardless of the outcome the end result might well be that many farmers, fishers, and those involved in the fur industry and privately funded scientific research face bankruptcy by the time the issue is resolved.

Protection is being denied. Neither the Minister of Justice nor anyone on the government side of the House to date has made a legitimate case as to why we cannot achieve all the protections and necessary elements. No one has explained why we cannot up the ante when it comes to sentencing and give prosecutorial teams or individuals greater ability to hold to task and bring to justice persons who deliberately or recklessly cause harm to animals. All that could be accomplished by leaving these offences in the property section of the criminal code.

The fears people have with respect to the firearms registry are apropos to what has happened because similar guarantees were given at the time of the passing of Bill C-68. The government claimed it would only cost $85 million. That has gone out the window. The cost has ballooned to over $800 million and is climbing. Yet the registry is still not up and running.

Was the gun registry a legitimate expenditure? Was it good value for the dollar? Are the Hells Angels lining up at kiosks at the mall to participate in the gun registry? Absolutely not. Will criminals give their fingerprints before robbing houses? No, they will not. Will they register their guns before using them for illegitimate purposes? Absolutely not. It is based on a completely false premise.

That is why members of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada do not support changing or tinkering with the gun registry. Making changes to the gun registry at this point would be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic . The ill-founded, ill-conceived, overblown, expensive and bureaucratic gun registry system will eventually collapse under its own weight. The police cannot rely on it. It will not achieve the public purpose for which it was sold to Canadians in a time of heightened awareness and fear about firearms. The assurances given to Canadians including the Canadian Police Association among other groups have been completely abrogated.

Why should we trust the government on this one? The government says legitimate animal stakeholders should not be concerned because protections would be there. I will make the point clear: There would be no compensation for individuals who wound up before the courts for legitimate practices concerning their animals, just as there is no compensation for gun owners who have their property seized. We are opening a door that is unnecessary and that may result in costly and protracted litigation. For what reason are we doing it? We are doing it for reasons that cannot be enunciated, explained or articulated by the government.

I regret that the Progressive Conservative Party will not be supporting the legislation. We had an opportunity to get it right. Perhaps those in the other place will have more success in convincing the government that we have an obligation to recognize that Canadians, particularly those in rural Canada, have needs that must be recognized and supported by the government.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the bill. It is my hope that this legislation will go through the House and move on to the next stage so that it becomes law.

This legislation deals with two elements, first, the harmonization of what we already have in a place, and second, to introduce new penalties and increase some of the other penalties.

The first element of the legislation would harmonize some of the definitions and issues that we have in the bill. That is a timely matter. As we know this legislation has not been touched for quite some time. I commend the minister who has brought this legislation before the House. It has gone through a substantial amount of consultation with various parties and interest groups, the community as a whole, and people at the provincial level. This has all been done with one thing in mind, and that is to bring to parliament legislation that reflects the needs of the communities, deals with the substantive issues that the government is trying to address and to harmonize some of the definitions and issues and bring them up to date.

On the second issue it is important for the government to take the action it is taking on the issue of enforcement. It is important for us to create a high level of awareness in our communities that cruelty to animals is not acceptable. We must put measures in place to protect animals.

Along with outreach, information and education there must be a level of enforcement. Individuals must be told what needs to be done but at the same time they must be shown the consequences if that does not take place. The introduction of the measure for protection came as a result of a number of studies that have shown over and over again that those who have tendencies to abuse animals would have tendencies to abuse human beings. That correlation does exist. Simply put, to introduce and strengthen those measures is the right thing to do.

Earlier my colleague raised a number of concerns. I have also heard from some of my constituents who have also raised some concerns. For example, one of the issues that has been raised in the House deals with certain provisions in Bill C-15B against the killing or poisoning of animals without lawful excuse that, in their views, would make industry more vulnerable to prosecution.

It is important to know that offences which prohibit the killing or poisoning of animals without lawful excuse are set out in parts of the legislation, mainly subsections 182.2(1)(c) and 182.2(1)(d) respectively. The words lawful excuse are expressly mentioned in the offence provisions because they form an integral part of the definition. The activity itself, the killing or poisoning of an animal may be a lawful activity, for example, slaughter, pest control, defence of persons or other animals, protection of property, legal authorization such as hunting, fishing or trapping, and euthanasia. Lawful excuse is a flexible concept designed to provide access to an unlimited variety of excuses or justifications.

Depending on the nature of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed it is impossible and unwise to envisage every situation that could amount to a lawful excuse for a particular offence. Whether or not there was a lawful excuse for an offence is a determination that must be made on the basis of all circumstances as presented by the evidence.

Another issue that had been raised concerning a certain element of Bill C-15B was whether or not the criminal code had the effect of criminalizing activities in various regulated sectors or setting standards of behaviour. The answer to this is quite clear. The criminal law in relation to cruelty to animals does not at all prohibit legitimate socially accepted or regulated activities that do not inflict unnecessary suffering on the animal. A vast body of jurisprudence on animal law supports this particular position.

If we look back over the past 100 years, since animal cruelty laws have been in place, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the criminal law is being misused to target legitimate hunters, fishers or people working on the farm. On the contrary there is every indication that the only acts that result in a criminal offence are of sheer or senseless brutality taken against an animal, or they come as a result of criminal neglect in the feeding or care of animals. The criminal law is applied generally and sets a minimum standard of behaviour which must be adhered to by everyone.

There have been other questions raised by my colleagues dealing with the possibility of a third party alleging that someone has committed a cruel act against an animal. This deals with the whole issue of frivolous or vexatious prosecutions. This particular issue would be dealt with by the courts. In other words, one would have to go through a lot of hoops before being able to establish a legitimate complaint against a third party.

Individuals would have to put their name on the line by making the allegation. The court would have to look at the allegation and assess whether or not there was reason to believe a particular offence had taken place. Before a procedure would move to the next step a judge would have to be fully satisfied that there was ample evidence that supported the claim of the third party that someone may have committed a cruelty to animal offence. Once it moves to the next step there are ample numbers of protective measures in place to prevent those kinds of frivolous actions from taking place. The criminal code also deals specifically with false allegations. An individual who makes a false allegation against a third party is subject to prosecution.

Having listened to some of the comments of my colleagues in the opposition as well as hearing from some of the special interest groups in the communities and looking at the legislation itself I can say in all fairness that it strikes a strong and good balance between the needs of those who are legitimate hunters or trappers and the protection for our animals. It is my hope that this legislation would go through the House smoothly and become law as soon as possible.