Bill S-203 (Historical)

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

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Justice and Human Rights

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In accordance with the order of reference of Friday, November 30, 2007, the committee has considered Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals). It has agreed on Thursday, February 14 to report it without amendments.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Just one second. It's my question time. I do have a question for you.

Based on what Ms. Markham has said, that is the difficulty we're struggling with here. I've not heard one group that has come to this committee, either supporting or opposing Bill S-203, suggest that we need lower penalties for those convicted of animal cruelty. I've heard people say they support the bill or they oppose the bill, but no one has said the penalty should be lower. And I've heard a great many of them say the penalty should be higher.

So while I agree this bill is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to animal cruelty, and I know there are other proposals out there, I think part of this campaign against the bill—and I'll let you address this, Mr. Holland—that I find odd is that you have a bill that doesn't claim to do everything. All it claims to do is increase the penalty when someone is convicted. I think that an increased penalty is something we should all support. But the argument we're hearing is that if this bill passes, then there'll never be any more animal cruelty legislation.

Ms. Tkachyk, you mentioned it has been a hundred years and you don't want it to be a hundred more. And I could agree with that. But we are only dealing today with one bill that does one thing, and we either support higher penalties or we support leaving the penalties where they are or we support lower penalties.

I personally support raising the penalties, because with some of the horrific things we hear about and that have been raised, the judges need to have stiffer penalties available. But what I absolutely reject is—and I think it's important for people who are following this to understand, and Mr. Holland, I'll let you address it—the premise that if this bill passes, there cannot be future legislation or that somehow it would take the wind out of the sails of anyone ever passing or bringing forward future legislation that did something else.

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

Thank you for your question, Mr. Ménard. The problem is that the bill does nothing to address cruelty to animals.

If you have 100% of a problem and you can fix 1% of that problem, but you have to entrench all the things that create the other 99%, you're asking me whether you would take that.

I would suggest that's a bad deal. What we're doing is entrenching all the things that give us a problem. Bill S-203 as it exists today entrenches all the things that make our laws third world laws. If you pass this, we're going to exit this House of Commons worse than we started, because we will have passed a placebo motion that people can hold up as a pretence that action was taken. We'll say we passed something; we did something about animal cruelty--

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have a question or two, perhaps to you, Mr. Holland, or you, Ms. Tkachyk.

First, thanks for your presentations.

Would it not be of some comfort to you, limited though it might be, to at least see Bill S-203 passed? Based on the fact, and it's well established, that harsher penalties serve as some deterrent to wrongdoers, would it not move the yardsticks along, advance your noble cause of protecting animals? Would it not move the yardsticks to some extent if, however flawed you may view this bill, it was passed?

[Melissa Tkachyk, Programs Officer, , World Society for the Protection of Animals (Canada)]

Thank you, Chair and honourable members, for allowing me this opportunity to speak about an issue that is of utmost importance to the World Society for the Protection of Animals, and to Canadians.

WSPA is the world's largest international alliance of animal welfare organizations. We work in partnership with more than 850 organizations in 170 countries. Our global partners include the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the American Humane Association, the American SPCA, and many others. WSPA holds consultative status with the United Nations and observer status with the Council of Europe. We work to improve animal welfare standards around the world through field work and advocacy.

WSPA Canada is based in Toronto. We are a Canadian charity and have more than 30,000 supporters across the country, and hundreds of thousands worldwide. If one takes into account the supporters of our member societies in Canada, we represent the voices of over 200,000 Canadians.

WSPA joins its member societies, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Ontario SPCA, and other international groups, such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare, in opposing Bill S-203. It is suggested that this bill was introduced to improve the protection of animals, yet not a single animal protection group in the country supports it. We oppose this bill because it is not an effective improvement to the current animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code, which haven't been significantly revised, as you know, since first enacted in 1892. This antiquated bill does not address the deficiencies in the current legislation, which allow so many animal abusers to slip through the cracks unpunished.

As you know, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies was already before this committee. They've calculated that less than 1% of animal abuse complaints made across the country lead to a conviction. Bill S-203 increases sentencing penalties; this is the only change it makes. We do not support this bill because we do not believe these increases are very useful if law enforcement officers are unable to prosecute animal abusers in the vast majority of cases. What difference does increasing penalties make if offenders cannot be successfully prosecuted?

Bill S-203 requires the court to prove that someone wilfully intended to neglect an animal. We have heard from SPCAs across the country that the burden of proof is too high, and that it is one of the main reasons so few complaints about animal abuse lead to convictions under the Criminal Code. Prosecutors have not been able to convict people who have starved their animals, because they cannot prove that the owners intended to cause harm, even though any reasonable person knows that animals, like people, need food daily and suffer when they are hungry, and that an emaciated body clearly indicates that an animal has been starved for a long period of time. The inactions or actions of the offender should be sufficient to convict them in these cases.

We believe the language in Bill C-373 makes this offence much clearer and will, therefore, improve conviction rates in cases of neglect.

Bill S-203 does not make it an offence to breed, train, or sell animals to fight each other to death, so long as the person is not found actually present at the fight. I'm sure you understand that illegal blood sports are not exactly publicized. Dog fighting should be prohibited as explicitly as cock fighting is in this bill. It is our submission that training dogs to fight and being in possession of dog-fighting equipment should both be prohibited. We believe this is necessary to crack down on the people who are participating in and encouraging this brutal blood sport. Great Britain's Animal Welfare Act takes it even further by making it an offence to profit, publicize, and promote any animal fighting.

Like the antiquated legislation currently in force, Bill S-203 provides less protection for unowned animals, even though stray, feral, and wild animals suffer just the same. So it's not an offence to kill, maim, poison, or wound unowned animals without a reason or a lawful excuse. It is legal now, and would continue to be legal, to beat a stray dog with a baseball bat, so long as the dog dies quickly. WSPA strongly believes that all sentient animals should be equally protected from being killed, maimed, poisoned, or wounded, in addition to being protected from suffering and neglect.

If the government is serious about tackling crime to build stronger and safer communities in Canada, it should not ignore the strong relationship between crimes against animals and crimes against people. Research shows that people who abuse animals are more likely to commit future acts of violence against people. Some of the most notorious serial killers abused animals before they murdered people. Their first crimes against animals should have served as an early warning that they were predisposed to harming people next.

The government has the opportunity to pass effective legislation that not only addresses animal abuse effectively, but can also help stop a cycle of violence in our communities. I do believe that if people are taught to respect the sanctity of animal life, it will contribute to the respect for the sanctity of human life as well.

I have summarized our main concerns with this bill, but there are many other problems, which I won't elaborate on, including the fact that it retains the illogical categorization of animals and the strange definition for cattle that is currently in the Criminal Code. As well, Bill S-203 still distinguishes animals as property, and it categorizes offences against them as property offences. Unlike inanimate objects, animals have the capacity to feel pain and suffer. Since their sentience is why we have legislation to protect them, this very basic fact should be reflected in the language of the law and how these types of offences are labelled and how the offender is punished.

Your committee has heard a lot of unfounded hysterical fears that the amendments animal protection groups support, such as those that are in Bill C-373, will somehow affect the right to hunt, trap, and go fishing. Some stakeholders have accused this bill's opponents of having an ulterior motive, such as an underlying animal rights agenda. Comments like these are absolutely absurd.

WSPA and the many other groups that are supporting Bill C-373 are simply advocating for legislation that effectively protects animals from horrific acts of cruelty, abuse, and neglect. Amendments like the one Bill C-373 proposes strikes a great balance between effectively convicting and punishing those who abuse animals, while protecting those who legally use animals.

During his deputation to your committee, Senator John Bryden acknowledged that his bill dealt only with one part of the problem, but that additional amendments should be made later. The committee is therefore being asked to pass deficient legislation on the grounds that some stakeholders would be uncomfortable with the changes sought by other stakeholders. Should we not be asking instead whether there is any validity to their concerns? If these stakeholders are concerned that the right to use animals is not adequately protected, then the solution, I would think, is not to maintain loopholes in the law, but to clarify the rights of these groups.

WSPA would gladly support this bill if it could be amended to resemble Bill C-373, which is essentially the same bill as the previous bills, Bill C-50, Bill C-15B, Bill C-10, which were twice passed by the House of Commons. Those bills were based on nearly 10 years of consultation, received broad-based support--that's support from all different groups that use animals, including support from all political parties--and also received strong public support.

This bill is clearly flawed if people who starve animals to death, bash stray dogs with bats, and train dogs to fight can slip through the cracks unpunished. This bill does not address the current loopholes, archaic language, and inadequacies in the original legislation. It retains them.

Bill S-203 does not deliver what Canadians are demanding from their government. Canadians do not view animals in the same way as people did in the Victorian era. They want modern, effective, and enforceable legislation that protects animals from reckless acts of cruelty. We have waited a long time for strong legislation to protect animals, but I'm afraid the proposal that is before your committee right now is just not worth that wait.

On behalf of WSPA, I'm asking you today to oppose Bill S-203. It's taken more than 100 years to make changes to our animal cruelty law. Let's make sure the new legislation is worth the wait.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 30, 2007, Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals) is under debate.

On our list of witnesses for today is Mr. Mark Holland, MP; and the World Society for the Protection of Animals, Melissa Tkachyk, programs officer; along with the Department of Justice, Karen Markham, counsel for criminal law policy section.

Please note, witnesses and members, that the time for the conclusion of these presentations and questions would be 4:15 p.m.

So I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Holland.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Before we adjourn today, I want to remind you that on Thursday we will be proceeding with the clause-by-clause study of BillS-203 concerning cruelty to animals. As the clerk is requesting, kindly forward your amendments by the end of the day tomorrow, that is no later than 3 p.m. or 4 p.m.

Do we know if many colleagues plan to propose amendments? I believe Mr. Comartin had indicated that he would probably be putting forward some amendments. We're not asking how many amendments you have exactly, but will you have more than ten?

[Barbara Cartwright]

Well, I'll speak to Bill S-203 and that position. Our concern, as we've said from the outset, is that higher penalties don't bring us higher convictions. IFAW has been involved in this process to increase protection for animals by increasing the number of people being punished for heinous acts of animal cruelty.

The Senate is the one that was entrenched. I have every confidence in this House to pass Bill C-373 and to pass good legislation that protects animals and that responds to Canadians' needs. When the Senate came back with those amendments, this House said no, they wouldn't accept all those amendments. They accepted the non-derogation clause, and they sent it back to the Senate. Unfortunately, prorogation happened, and it hasn't moved forward.

I don't feel that IFAW has been in any way entrenched, except at this point in time, when Bill S-203 does not afford animals any greater protection.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Your organization is diametrically opposed to the seal hunt, yet you just told me that you're not opposed to all forms of hunting. Can you rationalize that? It seems to me that you're opposed to Bill S-203, which does something, in lieu of something else that you don't have yet. Can you please—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

How can you justify or change your position, saying that the seal hunt is not okay, yet other forms of hunting are okay? How do you rationalize that? It's like saying Bill S-203 isn't okay, but some future bill that we're going to see is okay. Can you rationalize that for me?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

How much time do I have? Five minutes?

First of all, I'd like to thank everybody for coming here. It's been very interesting.

I'll basically ask the same questions I asked of the sponsor of the bill and the people who've testified before. I'm very concerned as a farmer and as somebody who represents a rural riding in Alberta that if we go too far we may affect some of the sensibilities of the good folks back home in Alberta, especially those who come from the agricultural sector, those who have used animal husbandry, farming, hunting, fishing, and trapping as a way of life for a certain amount of time in our history.

I'm concerned that if we lose this opportunity right now, we won't have an opportunity. I know there's another bill on the table as well.

But I am also concerned about some of the things that I guess my colleagues have made a point about as well: that there seems to be an all or nothing approach to this piece of legislation before us. When I see an all or nothing approach or see somebody entrenched or with their heels dug in, I'm usually led to believe they have an agenda beyond what's actually being discussed. The rationale I've heard is just not satisfying me, that passing Bill S-203 right now would somehow preclude our going further in the future. I want to get some clarification from some of the folks around the table here to see whether I can get at some of the roots of that agenda.

The IFAW is against the seal hunt, isn't that right? Would it be fair to say the IFAW is against all forms of hunting?

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

As a first world nation, then, we would still be considered something of a joke or an embarrassment after passing Bill S-203. So what we're debating is whether or not we pass something that still leaves us as an embarrassment in the rest of the world.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

What I think I'm hearing is that the animal welfare groups made compromises with respect to getting to Bill C-50—as did many of the animal user groups, by the way; I'm not just talking about one side. Both sides made compromises to get to a middle point.

What we're seeing with Bill S-203 is that it's the bill where there's no compromise; it's the bill that is only addressing concerns on the animal-use side. None of the issues I'm hearing are really being substantively dealt with on the animal welfare side.

This brings me to my last question. This would be to you, Kim. You talked about how Canada sized up relative to the rest of the world. What you didn't get a chance to say is—and it's embarrassing, frankly—that we're behind nations such as the Philippines. That's something we should really hang our heads about, I think, personally.

How would Bill S-203, after it was passed—I hope it doesn't happen, but let's just presume and say it did get passed.... How would Canada stack up against the rest of the world?

[Barbara Cartwright]

We agree. We see Bill C-373 as the result of a great deal of debate and compromise. It's important in a democratic process to engage in that compromise. We can't all have our dream world, regardless of which side we fall on this.

But Bill S-203 doesn't provide anything close to what Bill C-373 provides, which in our opinion, as Ms. Elmslie mentioned, is the result of broad debate, broad support—support from this very House twice, which I always go back to, because to me it's so important that the voices of the people were heard and that it got blocked at the Senate.