Bill C-373 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code by consolidating animal cruelty offences and increasing the maximum penalties.

[Don Mitton]

I don't believe the bill before us, Bill C-203, provides an adequate foundation. I think the amendment that we would be proposing would, for all intents and purposes, bring us right back to C-373. It requires too many amendments to address the needs and issues of the current day.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I'm wondering, Mr. Mitton made a comment about the fact that Bill C-50 had a broad range of support; it wasn't just the animal welfare groups, but after a lot of years of compromise and work, it was the vast majority of those who are also in the animal-use industry. Mr. Mitton made that comment, and I want to know if that was also your understanding, because I know compromises were made on both sides. I participated in those processes, and everybody on all sides was making compromises to get us toward the middle.

Would it be fair to say we were at a point of compromise and middle ground with what was Bill C-50, now Bill C-373, and that Bill S-203 represents a one-sided, animal-use industry bill, that we had a compromise, middle-ground bill and now we're dealing with something that isn't a compromise but is at the other end of the spectrum and only addresses the concerns of those in the animal use industry?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I want to go to some comments from witnesses that were made last week by the mover of the bill, Senator Bryden, and get some reaction. He said a couple of things: those on the animal welfare side and I would “lose the lever” was the term, if Bill S-203 were passed, and that he would not support Bill S-203.

That brings me to something I want to know if you have a concern about, and that is that the House of Commons has twice passed the legislation that is Bill C-373. The Senate rejected it or sent it back or didn't deal with it on both occasions. Given the senator's comments that it's not as if they can pass both--they don't worry because people support both--the Senate is saying they don't support the other, they support one. So are you worried that if the Commons got through the legislation that we need to finally do something about animal cruelty, the Senate is going to use the excuse that they already dealt with this under Bill S-203?

I don't know if Ms. MacDonald wants to respond to that.

[Greg Farrant]

As you might imagine, I don't agree with Ms. Cartwright's perception of the bill. We support Bill S-203. We understand exactly what you're dealing with here. It is a simple, straightforward piece of legislation that is before you.

The other bill, Bill C-373, is not before you at this time, and obviously we're all going to have a chance at some point in time to have that discussion. Today we're here to discuss this particular bill, and we support it because it does move the yardsticks.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if I'm hearing you correctly, you would lay charges in six to seven times more cases if the code were brought in line with what was C-50 and is now Bill C-373, the private member's bill.

[Don Mitton, Project Director, Canadian Association for Humane Trapping]

Good afternoon, honourable members, and thank for the opportunity to speak to you today about amendments to the animal cruelty sections of the Criminal Code.

I'm Don Mitton, project manager for the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping.

Since 1954, the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping has been diligently and responsibly working toward abolishing the pain and suffering of animals that are trapped for any reason. We have done that by encouraging and supporting research and development of more humane trapping systems and devices, through promoting appropriate legislation, and by encouraging and promoting trapper education.

The current cruelty to animals sections of the Criminal Code are archaic and for many years have not reflected Canadian society's view of animals and what is acceptable treatment. Reform is long overdue. But reforming only the sentencing provisions and leaving the outdated offences unchanged just makes no sense.

One problem in the current law is that the offence of killing an animal without lawful excuse applies only to owned animals. CAHT believes that this protection should be afforded to all animals, including wildlife, since lawful excuse already includes such activities as hunting, trapping, fishing, and scientific research, etc.

As you know, efforts to modernize Canada's federal animal cruelty law have been going on for more than eight years now, starting with a bill introduced by the Liberal government of the day in 1999. There has been considerable debate, both at the political level as well as among various stakeholders, over the years. Compromise was made and, with a few amendments, accepted in 2003. Almost all stakeholders were in agreement.

It is important to note the extremely broad support the bill had in 2003. Humane societies, SPCAs, animal care and control agencies, other animal protection groups, veterinarians, and police associations have been onside since the beginning.

But various animal-use industry groups were concerned about being exposed to risk of prosecution for carrying out their standard practices under the proposed new bill. These concerns were put to rest with the amendments in 2003, and the bill was supported by dozens of national organizations representing farmers, trappers, researchers, and others.

Many of these animal-use industry groups formed a large coalition that actively and repeatedly called on government to reintroduce the bill after it died on the order paper. I understand you heard from this coalition last week. Unfortunately, the one group that did not agree was the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which shamelessly asked for a specific exemption from the Criminal Code. Asking for an exemption from the animal cruelty section of the Criminal Code equates to asking for permission to be cruel to animals.

The fundamental concepts of good animal cruelty legislation are to prohibit wilfully and negligently causing unnecessary pain and suffering, killing animals without a lawful excuse, and abandoning or negligently failing to provide proper care for an animal. Why would anyone need an exemption from these offences? It is akin to exempting police officers or hockey players from assault laws, and we don't do that. No one should be exempt from the Criminal Code.

The CAHT believes that this radical position taken by the powerful lobby groups representing hunters and anglers led to the very introduction of Bill S-203. These groups convinced politicians that the bill that had so much support in 2003, now tabled as Bill C-373, would make hunting and fishing illegal.

With all due respect, that is an absurd notion. There is absolutely no legal basis on which to suggest that hunting, fishing, or trapping would become illegal any more than farming, scientific research, and euthanizing animals have been illegal for the past 115 years. The term “lawful excuse” permits lawful activities.

The Criminal Code responds to an individual's crimes against animals rather than legitimate industry practices to kill or use animals. Reasonable, widely accepted industry standards that avoid causing unnecessary pain, suffering, or injury will qualify as a lawful excuse.

Legislation, regulations, and other lawful excuses permit over 400 million animals to be raised and killed in Canada each year. SPCAs and humane societies kill many thousands of unwanted or unhealthy animals each year, as authorized by provincial statutes in accordance with approved euthanasia methods.

Statutory provisions enable householders to kill mice, rats, and legally defined pests. Slaughterhouses are federally or provincially authorized to kill livestock. Researchers can kill experimental animals pursuant to the guidelines of the Canadian Council on Animal Care. Licensed hunters, trappers, and anglers are authorized by provincial legislation and permits to kill wild animals and fish.

However, the requirement that no one can intentionally cause pain and suffering or injury to an animal using any means that is unnecessary continues as a fundamental requirement in all cases. This is how it is today and how it would remain under a bill like Bill C-373.

CAHT urges this committee to listen hard to the views of the majority of Canadians, and to humane societies and SPCAs across Canada, the very people who are using and applying the law. These organizations promote animal welfare, not animal rights.

CAHT knows that Canadians want better animal cruelty legislation. They have spoken out against Bill S-203.

We hope this committee will see that good legislation is about so much more than just penalties. Given the polarization of this issue, rushing to make a decision is both ill-advised and contrary to the democratic process.

Thank you.

[Shelagh MacDonald]

Okay. I'm sorry.

Number three, it is currently an offence to kill an owned animal without a lawful excuse—that would include farming, fishing, hunting, trapping, animal research, or protection of life or property—but it is not an offence to kill an unowned animal without a lawful excuse. Currently, animal crimes are considered property offences under the Criminal Code. The vast majority of Canadians have stated that they think all animals should be protected because they can suffer, regardless of whether they are somebody's property.

There is currently no offence for particularly heinous crimes of brutally and viciously killing animals. This kind of offence is needed to address hopefully very rare but very violent crimes that would otherwise fall through the cracks and are certainly an indication of violent crimes in our society that need to be addressed.

Having a separate section for cattle doesn't make any sense in the 21st century, and also referring to different types of animals in the current legislation, such as birds, dogs, cocks, is just very outdated. We think it needs to be fixed. And of course there are the inadequate penalty provisions, which this bill does fix.

We feel that Canada's current animal cruelty law is an embarrassment: it's out of date, it's ineffective, it's inadequate. Passing Bill S-203 will relieve neither the embarrassment, the ineffectiveness, nor the inadequacy.

It appears that there is considerable pressure to get Bill S-203 passed. Most politicians seem to be tired of discussing animal cruelty amendments and just want to get something enacted. But passing archaic, inadequate legislation just to get something passed is not what Canadians expect of our Parliament.

Canadians have spoken out against Bill S-203 repeatedly and in large numbers. The horrific case a little over a year and a half ago of Daisy Duke, a dog in Didsbury, Alberta, that was beaten, bound, and dragged behind a car, last year sparked a petition, which 111,000 Canadians signed, specifically worded as opposing Bill S-203, at that time called Bill S-24. That's a very large number of signatures on a petition.

A national survey conducted by SES Research in November 2006 found that more than 85% of Canadians think wild or stray animals should be protected from cruelty. The response to that question was virtually the same from all regions of the country, from urban and rural areas, and from those who hunt or fish.

More than 76% of Canadians support changing the law so that animal cruelty crimes are no longer property offences. In fact, people living in rural areas, those who hunt or fish, and people who traditionally vote Conservative are even more likely to support that change.

As you know, Mark Holland has tabled Bill C-373, which is almost identical to the bill that had gained widespread support in 2003. Let's not forget that the said bill had the support of all political parties in the House of Commons, of animal protection organizations, veterinarians, police associations, and the majority of animal use industries, including farmers, trappers, and researchers. You are now considering passage of a bill that doesn't have anywhere near that level of support.

One rather powerful sector that didn't support the bill in 2003 was the hunting and fishing lobby, which actually asked for a specific exemption from the animal cruelty sections of the Criminal Code. That is like asking for the right to be cruel to animals, which is not appropriate in the Criminal Code. I'm quite sure most hunters and anglers have no desire to be cruel to animals, so they certainly don't need such an exemption, and it's just not appropriate.

These powerful groups, the anglers and hunters, have successfully convinced politicians that a bill like Bill C-373 would make hunting and fishing illegal because they don't think it would be considered a lawful excuse. That premise is precisely why these groups are here today trying to convince you to pass this bill. But really, the term “lawful excuse” means “that which is lawful”. It is preposterous to suggest that heritage activities such as hunting, fishing, or trapping would not be considered lawful.

Those groups that oppose Bill S-203 do so not because of what it does but because of what it does not do. That is why you should oppose this bill, and that's why we oppose it.

Many have acknowledged that this bill doesn't fix all the problems but suggest we should do this now and fix the rest later. As politicians, you know that's not likely to happen. You know it will take years, maybe decades, before this Parliament is prepared to consider more animal cruelty amendments.

So the question is whether you support a wholly inadequate bill, just so you can say you did something, or you listen to Canadians and to SPCAs across Canada that enforce the laws, and reject this archaic and defective bill that won't improve the lives of abused animals.

I'm going to pass it over to Hugh. He's the chief inspector for the Ontario SPCA.

[Dr. Alice Crook]

Yes, Mr. Chair, I was intending to go through and hit the highlights. I realize there isn't time to cover it all.

I'll give you a little bit about my background. In addition to being at the Atlantic Veterinary College now, with the Sir James Dunn Animal Welfare Centre, my background is in veterinary anesthesia at the Ontario Veterinary College and the Atlantic Veterinary College, and as a practitioner in Ontario and P.E.I.

As Dr. Drake said, the CVMA for a long time has been actively supporting efforts to amend the Criminal Code regarding cruelty to animals. With many other groups, we provided input into the justice department's consultation paper on crimes against animals, circulated in 1999.

I mention this because I believe Mr. Bryden mentioned that the bill was kind of thrown together. But I think there was extensive Canadian-wide consultation and support for the different versions. And as I think most of you know, in 2003 the bill was very widely supported, including by veterinarians, animal use groups, and the Canadian Council on Animal Care. I think it was Mr. Comartin who said that the contents of Bill C-373 have been passed twice by the House. So I think the former versions do have broad support.

Turning to page 5 of my brief, I was going to talk a little bit about animal abuse as part of the larger picture of violence in our society, which as veterinarians we take very seriously. I am not going to go into that in detail, but I encourage you to visit the CVMA website, which has information on animal abuse and the links with human violence.

The CVMA believes that amendments to the Criminal Code are essential to improve the ability to successfully prosecute offenders, thereby assisting humane societies and law enforcement agencies to deal more effectively with cases of animal abuse and hopefully help interrupt cycles of violence, of which cruelty to animals is one component.

We also went into the particular problem areas that we think are not addressed. Dr. Drake mentioned those already, so I think I will skip right over those and go to page 7, to the area of traditional uses of animals.

This is something that is coming up. People are mentioning the concern that Bill C-373 would raise too many questions and that the former versions raise too many questions.

Actually--sorry, I don't want to confuse you, but I'm trying to condense everything here--I'd like to first mention wilful neglect.

One of our main concerns is that wilful neglect is not addressed in Bill S-203. We recognize that there is a dire need to increase penalties, and we fully support that. We don't have any problem with the levels of penalties that Bill C-203 proposes, but we do recognize that the vast majority of cases do not achieve successful prosecution.

A previous speaker mentioned the OSPCA having 80% to 90% success rates, but that's totally out of line with other reports I've seen. Our concern is that most cases of animal abuse are not successfully prosecuted. Wilful neglect is very much a problem area. The requirement to show proof that a person intended to neglect their animals makes it extremely difficult to prosecute cases of neglect, even in cases where dozens of animals have been starved to death.

I want to mention the example of Queen v. Russell, the Weyburn, Saskatchewan, case in which a number of calves died of starvation and malnutrition. In his decision of June 2000, the judge said there was no doubt that the accused were responsible, over a period of months, for cattle that were “clearly inadequately cared for with the result that some died of starvation....without doubt by a lack of adequate feed and care”. It's also mentioned in the transcript that there was evidence by experienced stock raisers that the practices being followed by the Russells were not accepted animal husbandry. The judge said there was no doubt that these animals were not receiving adequate feeding and care, but he ultimately dismissed the charges on the basis that the accused “didn't actually wilfully intend the cattle to die”.

So that's the problem with wilful neglect.

Now I'll go back to the traditional uses of animals. I'm guessing I have about four minutes left.

The main opposition to Bill C-373 and earlier versions comes from concerns that the proposed amendments will have a negative impact on legitimate activities that involve animals, such as hunting, farming, and medical or scientific research.

The following excerpts are from the justice department's aid to interpretation of the bill from April 2007:

The amendments [in the legislation] will not alter or criminalize any activity which is otherwise regulated or authorized by federal or provincial legislation or applicable codes of practice, such as normal agricultural practices, hunting, fishing, trapping, ritual slaughter, animal research, or food production.

So people carrying out these activities would not be subject to prosecution unless they are wilfully doing cruel things to animals, well outside of standard practices.

The only way that animal rights activists could attempt to bring charges against law-abiding anglers, hunters, trappers, farmers, and animal researchers would be through private prosecution. But the legislation makes animal crimes hybrid offences, as we've already established, and these are subject to a screening process that requires a much greater involvement of the crown prosecutors at the very early stages in private prosecution. These screening processes, which take place before an accused person is even notified, would prevent frivolous prosecutions from proceeding.

The protection of standard practices is actually made more explicit in Bill C-373 than in current legislation or in Bill S-203, because Bill C-373 includes the phrases “wilfully or recklessly” and “without lawful excuse” in the section regarding the killing, injuring, or poisoning of an animal. In addition, proposed sections 182.5 and 182.6 have been included in Bill C-373 to explicitly confirm common law defence and aboriginal rights.

In conclusion, we all agree that it's essential to increase the penalties for animal cruelty. The CVMA firmly believes, however, that increased penalties will make little difference if the new legislation does not also address the fundamental flaws in the current legislation that make enforcement difficult or impossible.

We respectfully submit that it does not make good jurisprudential sense to re-enact legislation largely unchanged that is over 100 years old. Therefore, we urge the standing committee to reject the amendments in Bill S-203 as inadequate.

Alternative legislation that has been carefully crafted and reviewed is proposed in BillC-373. It addresses the flaws in the current legislation and also increases penalties. The CVMA recommends that the standing committee support reintroduction of the amendments embodied in the widely supported former Bill C-50, the current version of which is Bill C-373. We believe such legislation would provide significant new protection for animals much more effectively than Bill S-203 and would not jeopardize accepted and recognized practices in the use of animals.

[Dr. John Drake]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, members of the standing committee. My name is John Drake. I'm this year's president of the Canadian Veterinary Medicine Association. That's the organization that represents Canada's 10,000 veterinarians. I'm also in a mixed-animal practice in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.

Preventing animal cruelty and animal abuse is a top priority for the CVMA. To properly deal with these reprehensible crimes, and also to prevent and reduce related domestic and family violence, Canada needs effective and up-to-date animal cruelty legislation in the Criminal Code.

As you know, Canada's current animal cruelty legislation dates back to 1892. Bill S-203, which we've discussed already today, changes very little of what is deficient in this antiquated legislation. The key weaknesses in the Criminal Code dealing with animal cruelty are, one, inadequate penalties; two, different provisions for different species and no definition of an animal; three, treating animals as property; four, the use of the term “wilful neglect” as burden of proof for animal cruelty conviction; five, absence of provisions for dealing with brutal or vicious killings; and six, insufficient measures regarding animal fighting and training animals for fighting.

Bill S-203, unfortunately, focuses mainly on increasing penalties. While that's commendable, it is not enough to critically address the flaws in the current legislation that make enforcement very difficult. Less than 1% of animal cruelty complaints result in a guilty verdict. Increased penalties do little to act as a deterrent when the chances of conviction are so utterly remote. Bill S-203 falls far short in changing these outdated sections of the Criminal Code.

Let me give you an example. Many Canadians would be outraged if they realized the ex-NFL star Michael Vick, who was recently sentenced to a 23-month jail term on a federal dogfighting conspiracy charge in the United States, would not likely face similar charges in Canada for this kind of horrific activity. That is because the wording in the Criminal Code makes it an offence to encourage, aid, or assist at the fighting of animals or birds, with the evidence being that the accused was present at the fighting. Vick was successfully prosecuted in the U.S. even though he was not present at the fighting. If this case had occurred in Canada, under the current legislation or under Bill S-203, it's very likely he would not have been convicted.

In 2008, the way our society values and regards all animals has shifted dramatically from 116 years ago. Canadians no longer view animals simply as property, and they expect that those who abuse animals should be convicted first, punished appropriately, and have the privilege of animal ownership severely restricted. The human–animal bond is incredibly strong, and many companion animals are regarded as true family members. It just makes sense that our animal cruelty laws should reflect these fundamental changes.

The CVMA has always been a strong advocate for remedying the weaknesses in the Criminal Code regarding animal cruelty. We strongly believe that Bill C-373, the private member's bill sponsored by Mark Holland, the most recent version of several earlier proposed bills, is a carefully crafted piece of legislation based on almost a decade of broad public and parliamentary consultation. Bill C-373 corrects the current deficiencies in the Criminal Code and it strikes an excellent balance between protection of animals and protection of lawful practices such as fishing, farming, hunting, trapping, and scientific research.

With me this afternoon is Dr. Alice Crook, coordinator of the Sir James Dunn Animal Welfare Centre at the Atlantic Veterinary College and a member of CVMA's animal welfare committee. I will now ask Dr. Crook to present CVMA's position and fully explain our reasons for opposing Bill S-203.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good day, Senator.

This is a rather unorthodox way for us to proceed. Regarding your bill, Senator, I totally agree that the problem is not the subject-matter as such, but rather the shortcomings. It is rather surprising that we find ourselves examining this bill, when the main problem here is its shortcomings.

Mr. Holland asked the question that I would have liked to ask, namely if you are prepared to endorse Bill C-373 for which there appears to be more unanimous support. You have already answered no to the question.

Since you were so involved in the bill, why did you not feel that it was a good idea to include a definition of the word “animal”?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

There is. My question is right now.

Senator, you had said we would lose the lever--those of us who care about this--if your bill got passed, to do something about the 99.75% of the other issues. Let me ask a very simple question. Will you support Bill C-373, given that enormous support from the Commons, the Canadian public, everything? Will you support that, yes or no?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator.

This is my concern, Senator. We know that only one-quarter of 1% of animal abuse complaints result in conviction. That means that dealing with the penalties only deals with one-quarter of 1% of the problem.

We have a bill in front of us that is opposed by every animal welfare group in Canada. We have over 130,000 signatures opposing this bill and supporting what was Bill C-50, which is now my private member's Bill C-373. We have a Facebook group with over 7,000 Canadians. The previous Bill C-50, now Bill C-373, has been passed by the House of Commons two times.

Senator, you said--

Animal Cruelty Legislation

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the 112,000 signatures already submitted to the House on this issue, I would like to present several more petitions that call upon the Conservative government to introduce effective animal cruelty legislation, like my private member's bill, Bill C-373, and to vote against the ineffective placebo Senate bill, Bill S-213.

Criminal Code

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise to speak on this bill. When I first came to Parliament nearly three years ago, animal cruelty was an issue that was indeed top of mind for me, something I was very concerned about. That concern was driven by what I had seen as a municipal councillor with both the city of Pickering and the Region of Durham, where again and again animal abuses were not prosecuted, where we saw that the laws that existed in Canada were completely ineffective and did nothing to deter animal abuse.

Of course when I came here to Ottawa and learned that it had been 1892 since last our legislation with respect to animal cruelty was changed, I wanted to embark on trying to modernize it, on trying to work with Parliament to get to a point where we could get those who are involved in the animal use industry and those supporting animal welfare to meet in the middle, to find a compromise and to find effective legislation.

Before we even got to that point, Parliament had already dealt with Bill C-17, Bill C-15, Bill C-15B and Bill C-10, then getting to Bill C-50 in the last term of Parliament. So for nearly 10 years Parliament had been wrestling with this issue.

The problem with the existing law rests in a number of different places.

One is that it treats animals as property, essentially affording as much protection to an animal as would be given to a chair in our house. For most Canadians that is not acceptable. It is a Victorian notion we have grown out of. It also did nothing to protect stray or wild animals that could be viciously killed for any reason. It gave no protection against brutally or viciously killing even domesticated animals. It did nothing to stop training animals to fight one another or receiving money from those fights.

It was clear that we needed to take action. Bill C-50 at that point came forward. It was an opportunity to bring the different groups together to look at why legislation had failed in the past. In fact, by the fall of 2004, shortly after that June election, as many as 30 animal industry groups came together representing a broad range from agriculture to fur and to animal research. They sent a letter to the then justice minister urging a quick passage of the reintroduced government bill.

That was Bill C-50. It represented compromise. It represented an acknowledgement that in the animal use industry there were legitimate uses that should be permitted, whether or not for agriculture or whether or not in hunting, but on the other side it recognized that we have a lot of work to do to better protect animals and to provide animal welfare.

Unfortunately, we did not get the opportunity, because of the brevity of the last Parliament, to pass Bill C-50. It had broad support, not only from industry groups and animal welfare groups but from this Parliament. I expect it would have passed, but we ran out of time.

In this Parliament I have put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-373, and we also have a bill that moved more quickly through the Senate, Bill S-213, which is before us right now and which we are talking about this evening.

Let us talk for a moment about Bill S-213 and the deep concerns I have with this legislation. First of all, the main thing the bill does, and in fact really the only thing it does, is deal with sentencing. This is a huge problem, because sentencing represents only a very small fraction of the real problem.

In fact, when we look at it, we see that less than one-quarter of one per cent of animal abuse complaints lead to a successful conviction. That is what this bill deals with: one-quarter of one per cent. If we hold Bill S-213 out as some kind of solution for animal cruelty, we are being dishonest. The only thing it deals with is that enormously small percentage of successful convictions. If we are serious about animal cruelty, certainly we must do more.

We also know that Bill S-213 will not make it easier to convict perpetrators of crimes toward animals. It will not make it easier to punish the people who commit crimes against animals or neglect animals. It will not offer protection against torture for stray or wild animals. It will not make it a crime to train animals to fight one another. In short, Bill S-213 just does not get it done.

If it were just a placebo, if we could just pass it and move on and hopefully get to my bill or some other version of what Bill C-50 was in order to pass effective animal cruelty legislation, then that would be one thing. My fear is that it will do more than that. My fear is that if we pass this placebo bill that does nothing, that addresses only one-quarter of one per cent of the problem we are dealing with in regard to animal cruelty, it will be held out as if we have done something.

I have listened to many speakers talk about animal cruelty. They talk about what happened in Didsbury. They talk about the terrible abuses that occur in our country today and go unpunished and they hold this out as some kind of solution. It is not.

If we do that, if we turn to Canadians and say that we have a solution for animal cruelty and it is Bill S-213, we are misleading them. Worse yet, it may destroy the ability to actually bring forward effective legislation. So if this does not do anything, why move forward?

I would like to talk for a second about some of the things my Bill C-373 should be able to do, or I would encourage the government to bring in a bill in the same vein.

An effective bill on animal cruelty should allow for the prosecution of negligent animal owners. It should protect the rights of those who work and must kill animals for their livelihood, such as anglers, hunters, trappers, farmers and biomedical scientists, et cetera, but it must prosecute individuals who harm animals without lawful excuse or who do so in a malicious way.

An effective bill must offer protection to pets and farm animals as well as stray and wild animals. It must make it illegal to train animals to fight one another. It must make it a crime to kill an animal with brutal or vicious intent, whether or not the animal dies immediately. This is one of the problems with our current law.

This would ensure that the perpetrators of grievous crimes, those who make the headlines, are actually brought to justice. We need to take that one-quarter of 1% into a figure we can be proud of and demonstrate that we are actually doing something.

Why do something about animal cruelty? The first thing that would come to mind, obviously, is hopefully because we would care, because we would have some compassion toward animals, because we would feel they deserve dignity and our protection. One would hope that this argument would be enough reason to protect animals.

However, there are other reasons. Certainly as Parliamentarians we have to consider the will of the Canadian electorate. We have to consider the will of those we represent. Anecdotally, we would all say, Canadians by a large measure want to see effective animal cruelty legislation, but SES also conducted a poll on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies in which 85% of respondents said they supported legislation that would make it easier for law enforcement agencies to prosecute perpetrators who commit crimes against animals, including wild and stray animals.

This means that 85% of Canadians said that existing legislation does not cut it. And Bill S-213 does not cut it. In fact, a petition was before the House with nearly 120,000 signatures, an enormous number, and it said that Bill S-213 did not do it, that it was placebo policy and it was essentially entrenching all of the same problems that we have today. The petition said that we needed to modernize our laws and, whether or not that is Bill C-373 or some other bill that accomplishes those aims, we should move forward with it.

The third reason we should care about animal cruelty, if those first two are not compelling enough, is that it is a precursor to violent behaviour against human beings.

In fact, Dr. Randall Lockwood, a Washington, D.C. psychologist who is also the vice-president of the Humane Society of the United States and one of the world's leading experts in the field of animal cruelty, states, “While not everyone who abuses animals will become a serial killer, virtually every serial killer first abused animals”. Of course this has been brought to the attention of the justice minister. He has been talked to about it and is made sick by this, it is said. It will continue to be brought to his attention until something is done.

We have every reason in the world to take action and yet we have not. In fact, we are still arguing about dealing with a non-measure that we are going to try to hold out as action. That is why groups like the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and so many others oppose Bill S-213 and urge the passage of Bill C-373 or other such effective legislation.

It is time that we listen to those voices, that we listen to voices of reason. It is time that we pass something that, frankly, should be motherhood. It is time to take effective action on animal cruelty and stop playing games or trying to pretend we are taking action. We need to stand up and either vote for Bill C-373 or have the government bring forward effective animal cruelty legislation.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate at second reading of Bill S-213, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals).

I think that we are touching here on a problem that worries not only parliamentarians, but also my fellow citizens, given the number of letters we have received. People love animals. These creatures are part of their lives, give affection and, for some, are sources of income. People clearly want us to create legislation that provides adequate protection for our animals and that fairly punishes people who have little respect for them.

As I was saying, this problem has undoubtedly been of concern to my current and former colleagues. Six bills have been brought before the House in recent years. Bill S-213 is the seventh. Not to mention Bill C-373, which is an eighth bill that has been introduced and is in progress. Our concern about animal welfare is clear.

Bill S-213 attempts to update the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with cruelty to animals, which have essentially remained unchanged since 1892. Just imagine: that is 115 years with no review of penalties.

That means that no one found guilty of mistreatment, negligence, abuse, mutilation or killing of an animal can be sentenced to more than six months' imprisonment or a maximum $2,000 fine, with the exception of wilfully killing livestock. These are sanctions from another era.

The Senate bill updates the legislation in three areas. First, it makes it possible for the courts to impose harsher penalties on those who commit offences involving animals, including such reprehensible conduct as mutilation, killing, negligence, abandonment, and failure to provide food to animals.

Bill S-213 creates two categories of offences: Bill S-213 would then separate offences into two categories: first, for injuring animals intentionally and, second, for injuring animals by criminal neglect.

Under traditional criminal law principles, knowingly or intentionally doing something is more blameworthy than doing the same thing by gross negligence. Accordingly, the maximum available penalties are normally much higher for crimes that involve deliberate action than for crimes committed by negligence. Bill S-213 would address this by distinguishing between the two types of cruelty. Bill S-213 would assign different maximum penalties to each, according to the different degree of seriousness.

Consequently, the maximum term of imprisonment would be increased to 5 years on indictment and 18 months on summary conviction. The new five-year penalty would also cover the offence of causing pain, suffering or injury by a failure to exercise reasonable care or supervision. In addition, the penalty is accompanied by a fine of up to $10,000 or up to $5,000 in the case of negligence.

For the other offences, such as abandoning an animal in distress or failing to provide suitable water, food or shelter, the maximum penalty on indictment would be raised from six months in prison to two years.

Second, Bill S-213 frees the court from the maximum period of two years when making an order prohibiting an animal owner from having an animal in his possession. The bill gives the court the possibility of making a prohibition order for life regarding the offending owner.

Third, the bill provides for restitution mechanisms whereby the court may order an individual to pay for medical expenses if an animal has been cared for by an animal welfare agency. As a result, individuals found guilty of negligence or intentional cruelty may be required to compensate agencies that have cared for mistreated animals. This measure would also help animal welfare societies recover their costs.

I firmly believe that these proposals represent a definite improvement over the current animal protection legislation. But protecting animals against cruelty raises concerns with respect to the measures that would penalize some people, especially aboriginal people with ancestral rights under section 35 of the Constitution and people who engage in legitimate sport hunting and fishing or legitimate research activities that may involve animal testing.

That reminds me of the letters I receive nearly every day. Some contend that Bill S-213 does not afford animals enough rights, but what those critics may not so readily admit is that the reason many of the previous bills did not pass is that they potentially violated the rights of those who depend on animals for their livelihood. Farmers, university and scientific researchers, aboriginal peoples, and fishers and hunters have all expressed serious concerns.

For example, in my riding, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, there are sport fishers and farmers. In talking with these people, I have discovered that most of them have a well-developed environmental conscience that often extends to animal welfare.

There are also aboriginal people in my riding. I have the privilege of representing the Mohawks of Kahnawake in this House. They have a long tradition of using animals for perfectly legitimate purposes that do not constitute cruelty to animals.

In response to this problem, my colleagues and I are looking to strike a difficult balance between our desire to protect animals against cruelty and the rights of hunters, fishers and first nations to continue engaging in legally sanctioned activities.

For these reasons, we will support Bill S-213 so that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights can study it more closely. By not proposing amendments beyond the penalty provisions, Bill S-213 ensures that everything that is now legal will remain so. More importantly, Bill S-213 protects animal rights and offers better tools of prosecution, yet it does not offer new grounds on which to challenge legal animal use practices. It will be interesting to see how we can work constructively in committee to maintain this balance.

In conclusion, my party considers animal cruelty to be unacceptable and despicable. That is why we are seeking to denounce animal abuse by amending the legislation, and Bill S-213 is a step in the right direction. That being said, this bill is incomplete. It will not solve all of the problems.

My colleague from Ajax—Pickering also introduced a bill concerning animal cruelty. Bill C-373 is interesting and has attracted the attention of many groups and individuals concerned about animal welfare and protection. Unless something unexpected comes up, I hope that the House's legislative process will make it possible for us to debate and perhaps support Bill C-373, which was introduced by the member for Ajax-Pickering.

I wanted to mention this particular bill because it improves on Bill S-213: not only does Bill C-373 increase the penalties, as recommended in Bill S-213, its clause 3 also ensures that the difficult balance I mentioned earlier is maintained by guaranteeing that legitimate hunters and fishers, including those exercising their aboriginal rights to practice such activities, will not be charged.

That being said, by sending Bill S-213 to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I believe the House will also be sending a clear message to prosecutors, judges and police officers that this Parliament believes in protecting animals and that it is against all forms of animal cruelty.