Bill S-203 (Historical)

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

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you very much for coming here this afternoon.

I will pick up where the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice left off. We have before us a very specific piece of legislation, that is Bill S-203. We may, of course, always compare it to previous bills, but even if they were good, in fact excellent, they all died on the Order Paper and we are no longer discussing them today. We are trying to draw your attention to something that I feel is very important. A bill has been drafted, and it deals with protecting life. In fact, animals are part of the group to which we belong.

Mr. Farrant, when you read Bill S-203, tabled by Senator Bryden, did you note the fact that it was increasing sentences? I am just expressing my thoughts. That is not necessarily what you wanted to say. There is a difference between an offence punishable on summary conviction—and in my province, that is practically the only measure that is taken—and an indictable offence. If we are talking about an indictable offence, the prosecutor representing the government knows that he can obtain a five-year prison sentence, in some cases. That does not make everything perfect, but is it not progress?

Instead of assessing a ridiculous fine, the judge will be able to impose a prison term. This will be published in the papers and will be better publicized. People will become aware of it. It will not be as it is in my province, where the Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals has problems surviving because no one ever hears about them. The fines are absurd. We cannot even manage to shut down the puppy mills or dog mills. Wouldn't the fact that we could see that someone was given a three-year prison sentence on the front page of the papers, which cannot be the case currently in the case of some offences, constitute progress?

Mr. Farrant, I would like your opinion on the subject. Personally, I feel this truly represents progress even though it is not perfect. Following that, I would like to hear Ms. Barbara Cartwright's thoughts. She seems to be saying it is not acceptable. I can tell you that it would help us in my province. When a person is sent to prison for three years, they will not make the same mistake twice.

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

Would it also be fair—and I've had the opportunity to talk with a lot of SPCA officers—to say they're extremely frustrated; that the language that exists today and what exists, frankly, in Bill S-203 is really the same situation; and that the frustration would be the same, and they would continually see cases of abuse that they want to be able to prosecute and Canadians want them to be able to prosecute, but that they just can't prosecute, either under Bill S-203 or under the existing situation?

[Jim Pippolo]

We're in support of Bill S-203. I do not know everything about Parliament, I'll guarantee you, but I think from what I've been led to believe, we can go forward with different legislation in the future. That's why we feel this one works currently and there are things that will work in the future.

[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.

[Barbara Cartwright]

Thank you very much, Mr. Moore.

I just want to be clear on behalf of IFAW that we do not support Bill S-203 at all, period. I think that's an important distinction, because it is getting clouded with the other bills. We're not favouring or talking outside of it. We are saying that Bill S-203 is an ineffective piece of legislation that will do nothing to increase the protection for animals in Canada, and our goal is to increase the protection for animals in Canada—all animals.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Chair, I want to hear the other comments, but this is part of where the reasoning breaks down a bit. I don't know whether or not some people are under the impression that if we defeat Bill S-203, that defeat somehow brings another bill on animal cruelty closer to fruition. It doesn't. Whether we pass Bill S-203 or whether it is defeated really has no bearing on whether someone introduces, or whether we in the future debate, more animal cruelty legislation. I hope everyone understands that if this bill is defeated, that fact doesn't mean that all of a sudden something else passes.

I can see the frustration, that people for decades have wanted to see a change. Now we're at the point where we're debating a piece of legislation, but we're not debating everything. There's nothing before us to debate at the moment; all we can do in this committee is decide whether we increase the penalty for animal cruelty or decrease it.

If there were a bill before the committee saying let's lower the penalty for animal cruelty, I think every one of you would be here saying you oppose that, and I would oppose it. Yet we have a bill before us saying let's raise the penalty, and people who would be opposed to lowering it are also opposed to raising it. That's what's a little ironic in all of this.

I will get the other comments, but I want you to comment in that light--that unless there's some procedural thing I don't know about, this bill's passing or failing has no bearing on future legislation dealing with animal cruelty.

[Greg Farrant]

You're quite correct. I appreciate the question. I don't share that opinion, nor do the people I represent. Realistically, I don't think anybody sitting at this table would suggest that the passage of Bill S-203 will end the debate on this issue either now or in the foreseeable future.

The question you have to ask yourselves is this. It's been 10 years since the justice department first put out its consultation paper on potential amendments, or proposed amendments, on this issue, and we're still sitting here debating this issue. Nothing has been advanced in that time.

We're all aware of the vagaries of Parliament. We're also aware that all of you sitting here today are subject to what is euphemistically known as the largest public consultation, a general election. There is rumour consistently on the Hill that an election may be coming sooner than later. If that, indeed, is the case and it comes sooner than we would have hoped, both of these bills will be lost and we are back to square one again.

Bill S-203 is at a stage now in the House much farther advanced than we have managed to get it in a long time. With all due respect to the honourable member for Ajax—Pickering, his bill is far behind this in the rota in the House.

This bill before you today requires a vote on report when it comes out of committee, third reading, and it's done. We at least, then, should we be subject to the possibility of a future general election—

[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.

[Barbara Cartwright, Campaign Manager, International Fund for Animal Welfare]

I'll begin, and then Kim will follow up. Thank you.

Honourable members of the House Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

My name is Barb Cartwright, and I'm the campaign manager at the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Today, I will provide you with an overview of why I oppose Bill S-203 and why it will not effectively protect animals from acts of cruelty. Then my colleague, Kim Elmslie, will present you with information on how Canada's legislation is falling behind other countries around the world.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare's mission is to improve the welfare of wild and domestic animals throughout the world by reducing commercial exploitation of animals, protecting wildlife habitats, and assisting animals in distress. IFAW seeks to motivate the public to prevent cruelty to animals and to promote animal welfare and conservation policies that advance the well-being of both animals and people.

IFAW has more than two million supporters and is staffed by 300 experienced campaigners, legal and political experts, and acclaimed scientists in 16 offices around the world. IFAW has more than 45,000 supporters here in Canada.

As our name suggests, IFAW is an animal welfare organization and not an animal rights organization. We are a science-based organization that works closely with industry groups and governments to provide constructive input into policies and standard practices.

For the past nine years, IFAW has worked alongside parliamentarians to develop modern and effective animal cruelty legislation. We want to continue that work with you now to bring Canadians the legislation they expect.

IFAW is opposed to Bill S-203 because it is an ineffective piece of legislation, making a perfunctory attempt at dealing with the vast majority of Canadians' concerns about our outdated and inadequate laws dealing with animal cruelty. Bill S-203 upholds inadequacies and loopholes that exist in the current legislation and maintains its ineffectiveness in gaining convictions. Less than 1% of complaints about animal cruelty lead to successful convictions. Raising fines does nothing to raise conviction rates, and this is not acceptable.

You will hear time and again that this is an issue of high importance to Canadians. Our office is inundated with calls and emails from our supporters and from the public requesting IFAW do something to protect animals from cruelty. Canadians want offenders punished. However, to be punished, they first must be convicted. A 2006 poll conducted by SES Research found that more than 85% of Canadians wanted legislation that will make it easier for law enforcement agencies to prosecute those who commit criminal cruelty to wild and stray animals.

During the last session of Parliament, a petition was entered into the House in which 111,000 Canadians opposed Bill S-213, S-203's predecessor. Recently, our office has received more than 170,000 letters and postcards also opposing Bill S-203.

Although Canadians continue to demand substantive changes to our legislation that will truly protect animals from cruelty, the Senate has championed legislation that does nothing to address the well-known inadequacies or modernize the Criminal Code of Canada. Merely increasing penalties is not the critical issue. Creating effective, enforceable, and comprehensive law is.

We have heard testimony during committee that parliamentarians should pass Bill S-203 now and fix it later. It is not responsible lawmaking to pass legislation that is known to be ineffective and unenforceable, with the hope that someone else will fix it later.

It is possible to pass detailed, strong animal cruelty legislation and have a thriving animal-use industry as well as a hunting and angling society. We see evidence of this in the many countries around the world that have passed such legislation and continue to farm, fish, research, and hunt, some avidly.

I will now ask my colleague Kim Elmslie to discuss some of that legislation with you.

[Greg Farrant, Manager, Government Relations, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, our wildlife affiliates in B.C., Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon, the Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association, and the Delta Waterfowl Foundation, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to comment on Bill S-203, introduced on October 17, 2007, by the Honourable Senator John Bryden.

You have before you a copy of my original comments, but due to some time constraints, I'll give you an abridged version of my remarks. In the process, I want to acquaint you with an example of a similar debate that occurred in another jurisdiction not too long ago—which Mr. Coghill in fact has already referred to—and demonstrate how it parallels the situation here today.

As Senator Bryden has noted repeatedly—and, in our view, correctly—there is a general consensus among Canadians that currently in the Criminal Code penalties dealing with animal cruelty are not sufficient, are not reflective of the seriousness of these crimes, and do not provide an effective deterrent. We agree. The debate over changes to the Criminal Code with respect to cruelty to animals, which began 10 years ago, has, however, failed to advance the issue one iota. Passage of Bill S-203 offers us the opportunity to correct that wrong.

The bill provides us with the means of addressing the need for increased fines and penalties against animal abusers without changing the existing substantive offences in the Criminal Code. All existing defences and rights, including aboriginal rights, would be preserved. This would lead to a certainty of interpretation due to the existence of a well-established body of case law. Under a bigger bill, new offences would be created with no case law to back them up.

It also speaks to the need to make changes to the Criminal Code that may in fact help eliminate the patchwork of punitive measures that exist across the country currently.

In June, 2007, the OSPCA expressed concerns about the inability of the Ontario courts to levy more serious penalties against an individual accused of a specific animal abuse. They noted that had the defendant lived in Alberta, British Columbia, or New Brunswick, the person would have been subject to the exact same penalties being proposed by Senator Bryden in this bill, since those provinces had already moved to strengthen provincial statutes.

The Ontario government has also been watching the progress of Bill S-203 with great interest. Last fall, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services stated that amendments to the Ontario SPCA Act, including the removal of the current cap on orders prohibiting an offender from possessing an animal, were being contemplated but may not be necessary if Bill S-203 is passed into law.

The increased penalty levels proposed in Bill S-203 mirror those that were included in several previous government bills and are based upon an extensive survey of the animal cruelty statutes in other jurisdictions. The changes proposed by Bill S-203 are consistent with where other jurisdictions have been going in this area, are consistent with the sentencing scheme that applies in the Criminal Code in general, and, according to a senior justice official, “constitute a significant improvement to the current law regarding sentencing, with which all Canadians would agree”.

Senator Bryden and others have already spoken in detail about Bill S-203, and as skilled legislators, you all understand what the bill does and does not do. So I'll use my remaining time to review the parallel example I mentioned earlier.

In 2002, in the province of Ontario, two bills were introduced to amend the Ontario SPCA Act. The first simply sought to increase fines and penalties against illegal puppy mills. The second bill contained similar penalty provisions. But it went well beyond simply increasing fines and penalties by proposing sweeping changes that had the potential to impact negatively upon legal, regulated practices.

The first of these bills was similar in intent to Bill S-203. The latter was similar in many ways to previous government bills that have been before Parliament over the last decade but did not pass. In Ontario, the simpler bill passed with the help and support of us and our colleagues at the Ontario Farm Animal Council. Understandably, the OSPCA initially supported the more comprehensive bill, but in the end, they realized that some progress was better than nothing and threw their support behind the other bill to move forward.

Since the passage of that bill, illegal puppy mills have faced increasing scrutiny, and the opportunity to lay charges has been strengthened.

Over the past two weeks, articles have appeared in several media sources across the country extolling the virtues of both previous government bills and the bill introduced by the honourable member for Ajax--Pickering. These same articles included a comment that suggested that the passage of Bill S-203 would be a sad day.

It defies belief how the passage of simple legislation that increases the court's ability to more severely punish animal abusers could be construed in this fashion, unless there is another agenda at play.

My confusion was apparently shared by a former animal cruelty inspector, who responded to these same media articles with a sense of indignation. He noted in his letter to the media that the cases cited in the articles could already be prosecuted under existing law. So what was the purpose of bringing in new laws? His comment is supported by statistics provided by a previous witness who quoted figures in the OSPCA annual report that demonstrate that the number of charges being laid are up. Convictions are successfully achieved in 80% to 90% of the cases under the current law. The former inspector who responded to those media articles noted that simply increasing the penalty should suffice, which is something that Bill S-203 does.

Last week, with reference to the previous government bills that failed to pass, a witness before this committee pointed out that poorly written laws are no substitute for inadequacies in the current law. We strongly concur, as apparently does the animal cruelty inspector I referenced before, who noted that bad laws won't protect animals from cruelty, but tougher enforcement and longer sentences might.

In this country there is strong, broadly based support for the new penalties contained in Bill S-203, both inside the government and in the broader general public. The bill has already been approved by the Senate. It represents the best opportunity in the last 10 years to pass legislation that addresses legitimate public concerns about heinous acts of animal cruelty and provides a more effective response than what is currently available.

Despite the unfortunate characterization by some of Bill S-203 as the lesser of two evils, which it clearly is not, passage of the bill will change the status quo and will give the courts the tools to sentence persons convicted of criminal offences against animals to more meaningful penalties that reflect the nature of these crimes.

We find ourselves on the cusp of an opportunity to do the right thing. The will to effect change clearly exists, and the debate around this issue has dragged on long enough. Before me you will see the evidence of that. These are all the debates in Parliament we've been through on these bills over the last 10 years, and yet no progress has been made.

Senator Bryden's attempt to propose a workable solution should be applauded. His bill may not be all things to all people, but it is a step forward and needs to be passed unamended; otherwise the debate will continue and the best opportunity we've had in a decade to achieve something of value will have been lost.

I thank you again, honourable Chair and members of the committee, for your time, your courtesy, and the opportunity to appear before you here today. 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. John Drake]

Certainly that's the fundamental issue. If we look at Bill S-203 as a stepping stone to something bigger, then that's one issue. If we look at it as taking the animal cruelty issue and getting it done, and then the discussion is not revisited until long after none of us are around this table, then that's a different thing.

Frankly, that's our fear, that if we accept this, as you called it, half measure or the watered-down version, once it's off the to-do list, then that'll be it. Trying to get it back on the to-do list is going to be even more difficult than it has been. That's our fundamental fear.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I'm not defending 1892 legislation, but there's a fair bit of misinterpretation one way or the other--and I don't know what the answer is--about what this law does.

I had some other questions about the legislation, but the final one is this. I don't know if you've been told, but it seems to me that we're either getting this, Bill S-203, or nothing, and that's because of how our private members' bills work and what the government feels about this legislation.

Wouldn't you agree that if it were this or nothing, this term, you would take it?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I want to thank everyone for their testimony. I'll keep my questions very brief.

I respect the submissions from the Cattlemen's Association, and actually all of the presentations. If I don't have questions for you, it's probably because I agree with what you said. WhetherBill S-203 is a half measure or not, it's a step, and I respect what you had to say.

I do have a couple of questions for the Veterinary Medical Association. I'm going to have my assistant look up proposed paragraph 446(1)(a), because it seems to me, Mr. Drake, that it would cover situations of killing animals that aren't owned and it would cover the Michael Vick situation.

If you read proposed paragraph 446(1)(d), it says “in any manner encourages, aids or assists at the fighting”, and I understand that would not involve birds, of course. He might be caught, however.... And I don't think you can answer this, but I'd like to know if he would be caught by proposed paragraph 446(1)(a), “wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal” . I think that would cover the Vick situation. I don't know that because I don't have all the annotated cases here.

That's my first question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Please submit your witnesses for Bill S-203, and then more for Mr. Moore's motion on the issue of impaired driving, which will be taking place when we get back in the new year.

Mr. Lee.