Bill C-17 (Historical)

John Finlay 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and simplified the existing law on animal cruelty by organizing offences in a more rational way and removing outdated distinctions and expressions.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.

Rodger Cuzner 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.

Gurmant Grewal 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.

Inky Mark Dauphin—Swan River, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-55 and on the amendment.

The bill is unnecessary, as was Bill C-36. Bill C-36 was unnecessary because we already had a new version of the War Measures Act known as the Emergencies Act. That is the purpose of the Emergencies Act. There is no reason the government cannot invoke the Emergencies Act during such times.

Since being passed by both Houses, how many times has Bill C-36 been used to fight terrorism? It has not been invoked once. I voted against Bill C-36 because it is bad legislation. It jeopardizes the values of a free society under the smokescreen and rationale of security. The real way to make Canada more secure is to have good intelligence, good police forces, good immigration policy and good customs and border personnel.

Bill C-55 falls under the same category as Bill C-36. If Bill C-36 has not been invoked up to this point in time why would the House and the country need another bill called Bill C-55, a so-called second version of Bill C-36 under the guise of national security?

Like Bill C-55, the Liberal government's gun control bill, Bill C-68, was not necessary. A report by the Library of Parliament to the House committee stated that Bill C-17, the former Tory bill for gun control which was brand new at the time, had not had time to be implemented before the Liberal government started another gun control bill. The Liberal government did not listen and we ended up with the big mess we have today under Bill C-68.

Canada has always had gun control. Handguns have been registered since 1934. Will registering all firearms make the country safer? Of course it will not. We all know that. Let us look at the statistics. Over the last four years since Bill C-68 was implemented gun murders have doubled. An Ontario study showed that 80% to 90% of illegal handguns are Saturday night specials that come over the border from the U.S.A. Canadians who own legally registered handguns are not potential criminals. This is an illustration of how unnecessary Bill C-55 would become.

Through Bill C-68 the government has criminalized all Canadians who use firearms legally. Unfortunately, Bill C-68 has divided Canadians along urban-rural lines. As has been said many times, rural Canadians use firearms as necessary tools in their culture and environment.

Canadians support gun control but not the kind created by the Liberals to gain votes from urbanites. There has been little accountability from the Liberal government regarding gun control expenditures. Other than buying votes and creating jobs in Liberal ridings the government's expenditures of over $700 million have done absolutely nothing for the health and safety of Canadians. I am comparing Bill C-68 to Bill C-55 because I hope doing so will foreshadow the bill's possible effects.

Cancer kills many more people annually in Canada than firearms. In 1999 there were 536 homicides of which 165 were shooting deaths. In 1997 there were 58,703 deaths due to cancer. The Liberal government has spent over $700 million on gun control in the last eight years. How much do members think the government has committed to cancer research? Since 1992 the government has committed only $25 million to breast cancer research. In the 54 years since 1947 only about $700 million has gone to cancer research. Those are pretty lopsided figures.

There is something wrong with this picture. Statistics Canada tells us we are 320 more times likely to die of cancer than by being shot. Is it not ridiculous that the Liberal government has spent over 25 times more on gun control than breast cancer?

Bill C-55 would give the optics of security. However it would do nothing more than give Canadians a false sense of security. It would attack whatever was left of the freedoms of being a Canadian and living in a democracy.

Part 6 of Bill C-55 would impact every firearm owner in Canada. In amending the Explosives Act it would give the government the right to regulate and put an end to the making, purchasing, possession and use of all ammunition. It would take us back to a time when one had to write in a permit book how much and what kind of liquor one purchased at a vendor. Will the next step be to control the amount of bullets and empty cases one can have in one's home? Part 6 of the bill defines “inexplosive ammunition component” as:

--any cartridge case or bullet, or any projectile that is used in a firearm--

Would plumber's lead come under this class? It has the potential of being made into bullets. Perhaps lead fishing weights and jigs would qualify. How about shotgun wads, felt pads and patches? I do not imagine too many Liberals even know what a patch is.

How would part 6 of Bill C-55 protect Canadians from terrorists? Terrorists would keep bags of bullets and empty cartridge cases hidden. As far as I am concerned, poor unsuspecting law-abiding Canadians would be the victims of another Liberal bill much like Bill C-68 and Bill C-36. With laws like C-55 why would law-abiding firearms users or any other Canadian trust the Liberal government?

The biggest problem in Canada is that the Liberal government thinks it knows what is best for Canadians. However it does not listen very well. We have heard over and over again that in Canada we have government by one Liberal. It is not far from the truth. Is it surprising to see the Liberal government embroiled in corruption charges in recent weeks?

The government pays only lip service to the needs of Canadians. Let us look at our problems in softwood lumber and agriculture. Europeans receive 56 cents on the dollar in subsidies. The Americans will end up with the same. The poor Canadian farmer fighting to survive receives only nine cents on the dollar in subsidies.

Like Bill C-68 and Bill C-36, Bill C-55 is nothing more than a snow job and a power grab. Canadians need to wake up before it is too late. Canadian values are being attacked daily by the Liberal government. It is time to change the government.

Peter Goldring Edmonton Centre-East, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15B, an act to amend the criminal code and the Firearms Act. The stated purpose of the bill is to amend the criminal code by consolidating animal cruelty offences and increasing the maximum penalties. The bill would also add administrative provisions that are intended to simplify applications of the Firearms Act.

Bill C-15B re-introduces the proposed amendments to the cruelty to animals provisions 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 livelihoods still have a number of concerns with the bill.

One concern is that the definition of animal is too broad. The proposed definition of an animal in Bill C-15B includes non-human vertebrates and all animals having the capacity to feel pain. The new definition would extend 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 afforded at present to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices.

The phrase legal justification, excuse or colour of right in subsection 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 protection.

Moving the animal cruelty section out of the range of property offences to a new section in its own right would emphasize animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. 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. The legislation could open up the possibility that farmers, sporting groups and scientific researchers would be unjustly prosecuted.

Animal rights groups in Canada will certainly use the new legislation as the basis for such prosecution and have already stated their intentions to do so. Liz White, the director of legislative revision from the Animal Alliance of Canada has stated:

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 the conviction to lay charges. That's what this is all about. Make no mistake about it.

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

The changes to the Firearms Act are administrative by nature. The provisions of the bill are intended to simplify the registration process and to incorporate information technology to reduce costs. Regarding the Firearms Act, I refer to section 31 of the Canadian Alliance declaration of policy where it states:

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 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.

We support increasing penalties for cruelty to animals 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 livelihoods.

We do not support the amendments to the Firearms Act as we have a long held feeling that the act should be repealed entirely and replaced with a practical, cost-effective firearms control system.

To reiterate, the Canadian Alliance in no way condones intentional acts of cruelty to animals and supports increasing the penalties for offences relating to such acts. Moving animal cruelty provisions out of property offences to a new and separate section of the criminal code could elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts. The defences currently available would no longer apply in the new section. The new definition of animal would include an extremely broad definition that includes a vertebrate other than a human being and any other animal that has a capacity to feel pain. This new definition would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never been provided that kind of protection before.

The former justice minister stated that what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent. If it was not the former justice minister's intention to change what is lawful today why did she not simply raise the penalties for existing animal cruelty offences?

Without substantial amendments to address the concerns I have I must join with my colleagues of the official opposition party and oppose the bill.

Peter Adams Peterborough, ON

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member stands up and accuses me of being irrelevant by addressing Bill C-15B, which I think has been mentioned by every Alliance member except him this afternoon. It was to that I was responding. He then proceeded to ask me a question on a topic I did not mention in my speech. This is surely irrelevance.

I would like to say that my point of view on this is very strong. I represent farmers. I have represented them since Bill C-15B was Bill C-17. I believe that it is our job as members to examine the legislation and to explain it as well as we can and truthfully to our constituents. That is what I have tried to do since the days of Bill C-17.

An Alliance member stood up earlier today and said that rural members on his side have recently discovered something about this legislation, but we have been working on it for three years and, by the way, to the satisfaction of many of our farmers. I believe this is what has happened. A year or so ago supporters of the gun lobby got a spurious legal opinion that included the matter of property, which is also an irrelevance, and they have been arguing that spurious legal opinion they have developed on the backs of the farmers.

As it came from the gun lobby and the hunting groups, why do they not use hunting examples when they are considering cruelty to animals? Why do they persist in raising all these standard practices of the farming community, which, as I have explained, have been protected for a half a century? Why do they do that?

I would say they are hanging the farmers out to dry. They should be talking to their farmers and educating their farmers on what not just this legislation but all legislation means.

Gerald Keddy South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret and trepidation that I rise to speak to Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals legislation. I am sure all members agree that this legislation is seriously needed.

It has been 100 years since the legislation was updated. It is an issue of great importance to the country and an issue that needs to be dealt with by the Parliament of Canada. As I said, I rise with some regret and trepidation because as a member of parliament, a farmer and hunter, I cannot support the legislation. It needs to be improved and modernized.

What we have before us is the complete dereliction of duty by members of the Liberal government. This is a complete denial on their part of grappling with a difficult issue and coming out with an evenhanded and balanced approach to complex problems. This is not what has happened here.

I have no idea how rural members of the Liberal government, the agriculture critics, and the committee members will vote. Actually I have an idea how they will vote, but I do not know where they stand on this issue. I do not know why we have not heard more from the government side on this issue.

Bill C-15B is a bad piece of legislation. Anyone who has taken a moment's time to read it, who has a rudimentary understanding of rural issues, animal husbandry and cruelty toward animals legislation, and anyone who has the barest opinion on this subject cannot support the legislation. There is no way I can envision support for the legislation.

I received a letter from Doug Bacon, president of the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture. He writes:

The Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture and its members have been following the progress of the cruelty to animals section of Bill C-15B with close attention. Since a key component of the agricultural industry relies on animals, this proposed legislation has the potential to seriously impact our livelihoods.

We are supportive of many aspects of the legislation, including tougher penalties for animal abuse, and while the previous Minister of Justice was very compelling and her amendments helpful, we are not convinced...

This is from people the legislation is directed toward. The legislation is not directed toward some university student who throws a cat out a window albeit that would be a horrific offence. The legislation is not directed toward pet owners who neglect, abuse and torture pets every day in Canada. The legislation is directed toward people who are legitimate animal owners.

I do not know what category animals would be included once the bill is passed. However I do know in what category they would not be included. They would not be put in the property section of the legislation. What are they then? The government thinks they are kids. They are not kids and are not about to be kids. It is time for the government to wake up and smell the roses. It is time for the government to look at the legislation for what it is.

The letter continues:

Bill C-15B must be amended to ensure legitimate animal practices will not be frivolously targeted. We need your support to ensure:

1. Animal cruelty provisions are put back in Part XI of the Criminal Code. Animals are property and such classification does not impede or prevent appropriate animal care practices;

2. If animal cruelty provisions stay in Part V.1, it must be amended to read, Cruelty to Animals: Private and Public Property.

If pet owners want to think that their animals are somehow public property or somehow different than agricultural or domestic animals, so be it. A provision should be put into the bill to accommodate those people. I happen to disagree with that, but animals should not be put under the provision of being property for farmers because that is a huge mistake which will do nothing but generate millions of dollars worth of lawsuits that are just waiting to happen.

The last amendment reads:

1. The definition of animal be amended as per the testimony of the Criminal Lawyers Association before the Standing Committee.

Mr. Bacon goes on to say:

These changes will not weaken the law but will serve to clearly establish in law the intention to protect the rights of animal users--an intention that has already been communicated by the minister. We are not asking for special treatment under the law, we are only asking for a law that will respect standard animal practices.

The bill was originally introduced in the House of Commons on December 1, 1999, as Bill C-17 and died on the order paper with the call of the election in October 2000. It is currently before parliament as Bill C-15B. It was studied by the justice committee and received testimony from numerous legal experts and representatives from both animal rights groups and organizations representing hunters, anglers, trappers, farmers and other stakeholders.

When re-introducing the bill, the Minister of Justice heeded the concerns of the opposition parties and stakeholders and made amendments from the previous Bill C-17 to provide clarification to the cruelty to animal provisions, encompassing those who willfully, recklessly or without regard to the consequence of their acts, cause unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal. Despite these improvements further amendments were needed before the Progressive Conservative Party could support these provisions dealing with crimes against animals.

It is not because this is not an important issue. It is not because this issue needs to be dealt with. It is because this is a bad piece of legislation. Certainly it is not the job of parliamentarians to leave the decision on what constitutes cruelty up to the courts. If we were to leave every decision that needs to be made in this country up to the courts, we would live to rue that day. We would regret it, it is quite simple. We cannot, as representatives of Canadians and protectors of animal rights, take farm animals out from under the property act. That would be a huge mistake.

It is a mistake that this parliament and other parliaments and Canadians would pay for. It would be impossible to guarantee the safekeeping of every animal owned, and I say owned because they are property, by every farmer in Canada. Without question, the bill needs to come before parliament but it desperately needs to be amended. It needs to be improved upon. We need to put it back in the realm of a bill that when we leave the House after it is passed, because the government will pass it, we can say it is a good piece of legislation and we did the right thing.

I expect there will be many Liberal members of parliament who, if they vote for the bill, will hang their heads in shame after they have done it.