Justice Committee on Jan. 31st, 2008

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

What about the brutal...? I'll get the exact wording--

[Leslie Ballentine]

We want one word added.

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

And what is that word?

[Leslie Ballentine]

“Intent”.

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

I know I'm just about out of time, but are there any other specifics you can think of for change?

[Leslie Ballentine]

Those are the two major ones. We would have liked nothing better than to come before a committee collectively with those who support Mr. Holland's bill, or Bill C-50, or whatever you would like to call it. We tried to accommodate that, because it makes it much easier for you as legislators.

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

No question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the testimony that I've heard today.

I have a couple of questions specifically for the folks from the veterinary association.

Within your membership, is this a unanimous position? I can't imagine it is, given the fact that there are 10,000 veterinarians from coast to coast to coast in this country.

[Dr. John Drake]

No, we have not, of course, polled every single member, but the structure of the CVMA is such that it's a representative, democratic body, and so those on our governing council have unanimously supported this, the animal welfare committee of the association has supported it, but there will always be some people, of course, in any group who will not support it.

One of the biggest challenges we all face is determining the truth. What is the right legal interpretation? Everybody here wants the same thing. We want good legislation that can be enforced, that can result in convictions where convictions are warranted. Nobody wants frivolous or vexatious prosecutions pursued. Nobody wants to jeopardize legitimate animal research. We all want the same thing. The challenge for everybody is to try to find what is really the truth, and there are several interpretations.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I agree. Those are noble goals, to be sure.

What I don't understand, and what I can't, for the life of me, figure out is why, given the history, the track record of previous incarnations of other bills such as Bill C-50, such as Bill C-10A, such as the bill currently on the order paper to come up at a future date, which might encompass the things you've talked about, they have never historically been successfully passed through our Parliament. They might have made it to the House. They might have been introduced at various stages, but they've never made it all the way to the top.

The one thing that you called for in the six items you listed out was an increase in the penalty provisions. For the life of me, I can't figure out why you wouldn't take the bird in hand now rather than risk it for the two in the bush that historically have always gotten away. It's just a comment I am making. I don't expect you to comment any further. You've already made your testimony to that effect.

I do have a question, which I asked the sponsor of the bill, with regard to cattle. I remember a drought in Alberta in the early part of the 2000s, when we actually had a Hay West campaign because we couldn't feed our animals. I would be terrified, as somebody who grew up on a beef farm. I don't know anybody who doesn't responsibly manage their herd, but if you run out of feed or if you run out of money to pay for the feed.... Take a look at some of the crises that are going on in the hog industry. I can't imagine that we would bring prosecutorial advances toward somebody who literally couldn't afford to feed their cattle. But some of the suggested changes I'm hearing from the veterinary association would probably lead down that path.

I am just wondering, Ms. Ballentine, if those are concerns your organization has with regard to some of the changes that are being proposed by other organizations.

[Leslie Ballentine]

They were very serious concerns with the earlier versions. Remember that we've been through multiple versions. Each time there have been changes made to the bills, every time to address legitimate concerns. The one you brought up is a prime example. Currently, if we take Bill C-50 or Bill C-373, we think we've addressed that particular issue, but we still have further concerns--brutally and viciously killing an animal being one of them.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I have one other question, and I'm going to go to Mr. Tasker or Mr. Wills here, because this deals with scientific research.

I know of a scientist who is going through clinical trials right now in England because he cannot, because of the ethical rules and standards we have in this country, perform those clinical trials here. Those clinical trials are being performed to basically help us in eradicating BSE, the spongiform prion, which we're dealing with in this country. Yet in an ironic twist of fate, he can't actually do the clinical trials in this country that may come up with a solution and prevent BSE from occurring here.

When it comes to animal research, this bill is obviously, from your testimony, satisfactory. I'm just wondering if you are concerned, if we go too far, about not being able to do the things we need to do, some of which research would actually help prevent cruel and unusual treatment or cruel and unusual fates for animals.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

You can give a quick response, Mr. Tasker.

[Dr. Andrew Tasker, Professor of Pharmacology and Director, Atlantic Centre for Comparative Biomedical Research, Atlantic Veterinary College of the University of Prince Edward Island, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada]

I agree with you. There are always going to be issues in that you can do certain forms of research in certain jurisdictions.

One of the great strengths of the Canadian system is that it has a national set of guidelines, administered through the CCAC, that is then interpreted at a local level in respect of what's appropriate in a particular jurisdiction. The committees include people who represent researchers but also members of the public, veterinarians, and others. So whenever you put something before a committee, you're going to be subject to discussion and interpretation by that committee. In the case you describe, I'm willing to bet that the local institutional animal care committee decided that maybe that work couldn't be done, for whatever reason.

I can't comment on it further than that. I can simply say that from the perspective of medical research, there were concerns with previous legislation that came forward. It was largely not a question of the intent of that legislation. As Dr. Drake said, we are all on the same page in terms of wanting to do something good here. But there were concerns, and those held up passage of the legislation, and other groups had other concerns--similar ones, different ones, and things like that.

We have no concerns with Bill S-203. I completely agree with the point you just made, from my perspective as an individual. As a medical researcher, I have no problem with the proposed legislation. I may in the future like to see things that are more all-encompassing, that deal with some of the issues--either restrictive issues or permissive issues--you mentioned. But at this point in time I see no harm in approving legislation that gets us one step closer to where we want to be, as opposed to remaining mired in the situation we've been in for an extremely long time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Tasker.

The time has basically run out, unless, Mr. Comartin, you have one more question you would like to ask Mr. Murphy. No?

Mr. Drake, did you want to make further comment, or Ms. Crook, quickly?

[Dr. John Drake]

My summary would be what we've said before. Although no one can argue against the laudable goal of increasing penalties, and we fully acknowledge that Bill S-203 has everything in it that the previous incarnations of the legislation had, as far as penalties go, our position is that the penalties are not enough on their own. We need firmer legislation that will give a greater chance of conviction. Depending on whose statistics we hear today and whose we accept, we have very different versions of what the situation is. That's, I guess, for the committee to sort out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The statistics vary dramatically, I dare say, as presented.

Thank you all for attending. I really appreciate it. I also beg your forgiveness for the time constraint that was placed on us. We had some committee business to look after, and it was difficult to manage it all.

Thank you again.

Our next committee meeting will be Tuesday, February 5.

Can I have a motion for adjournment, please?

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

So moved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The meeting is adjourned.