Evidence of meeting #10 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was s-203.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
Chair, Animal Welfare Committee, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association
What is the desire of the committee?
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
I wouldn't see any harm in staying to give time to each member who wanted to ask questions. These witnesses have come a long way in some cases.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
In the case of P.E.I. people, they may not have lit homes to go to, so I think we should have three-minute question rounds.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I'm going to restrict the time on the questions to perhaps less than three minutes.
Mr. Murphy, you're first on the list.
5:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Mr. Chairman, I have to leave because I am scheduled to make a speech in the House. Are you planning a round of questions?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
NDP
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
You're certainly on the list, Mr. Comartin, but we'll make the adjustments accordingly.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
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.
5:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association
I certainly can't respond to that with any degree of legal expertise. But certainly one of the problems with the wording in the legislation that does refer to dogfighting is that it does leave that specific area where one of the examples, at least--whether it's the only acceptable one, or if it's just an example--is that the accused be present at the fighting.
In the Vick case, what happened was, subsequent to another investigation on the property on drug charges, they found evidence that there was dogfighting and that he owned the premises at which it was occurring.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
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?
5:30 p.m.
President, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association
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.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
That's certainly not our intention on this side.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I thank you for your presentation.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Ms. Ballentine, as this was working its way through the various incarnations, starting back after the report in 1998, there was a coalition formed at the time. I think at least some of your group were on that and in fact had agreed to the earlier incarnations of the bill.
January 31st, 2008 / 5:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Farm Animal Council, National Coalition of Animal-based Sectors
No, we agreed to Bill C-50.
5:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Farm Animal Council, National Coalition of Animal-based Sectors
Yes, only the one bill, and that was subsequent to numerous changes over the previous bills. There was splitting of bills, there were amendments made with each bill.
The reason we--
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I'm sorry, I have very little time. What I'd ask you to address is what is different about Bill C-50 that is not in Mr. Holland's private member's bill?
5:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Farm Animal Council, National Coalition of Animal-based Sectors
There is nothing different between the two bills. The difference is new, fresh evidence and legal opinions that have raised additional concerns, and therefore we still require several changes to be made to whatever number you want to give it. We have tried to address those concerns with those people who do support Mr. Holland's bill. We have gone to great length to try to find some common ground in adding additional wording that would improve the interpretation and understanding of that bill, and unfortunately, through no lack of trying, we have been unable to come to an agreement, which puts us in the position where we are today. We don't have Mr. Holland's bill here to consider; we do have Bill S-203.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
The wording you're looking for would include exempting certain sectors of the--
5:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Farm Animal Council, National Coalition of Animal-based Sectors
5:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Ontario Farm Animal Council, National Coalition of Animal-based Sectors
No. We want clarification that legal, responsible use of animals is not the intention of this bill, whether it is keeping pets, whether it is agriculture, whether it is biomedical research. We are not asking for an exemption for farmers. We are not asking for an exemption for medical researchers.