Bill C-15 (Historical)

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other Acts

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague who just spoke and also my friend from Lakeland who spoke a minute ago on their speeches. They touched on many of the concerns the Alliance has with Bill C-15B.

I want to point out that in a way Bill C-15B underlines the misunderstanding or the lack of appreciation that the government has for farmers and ranchers in Canada. This is one of many pieces of legislation and initiatives that the government has taken that really make it difficult for farmers to make a go of it today.

I refer to the endangered species legislation which would not properly compensate farmers and ranchers whose land would be taken out of production because of the legislation. This comes at a time when farmers are already in straitened circumstances. I refer to Kyoto which potentially could have tremendous negative consequences for farmers and ranchers. I refer to the government's unwillingness to address the drought situation in the prairies and the lack of a suitable farm safety net that would allow farmers and ranchers to make it through tough times when European and American farmers are receiving heavy subsidies that distort the market.

On top of all of that this really causes me to wonder whether or not the government understands what is going on in rural Canada. It seems to be completely insensitive on the issue.

My friend mentioned the problem of gophers on the prairies. I can assure members that this is a real problem. A couple of years ago a farmer just outside of Seven Persons, Alberta called to say he was being overrun by gophers. Times were tough on the farm and he complained about putting seed in the ground only to have swarms of gophers consume everything he had planted. It is difficult to deal with that kind of situation without the support of government.

In Alberta there is a real move to deal with the problem of swarms of gophers that cause all kinds of destruction not only to crops but leave holes that cattle step in and break legs, and cause destruction to underground wiring and so on. Many people are concerned to start to deal with the gopher issue the way that they have always dealt with it in the past which is to use poison in some cases or shoot them in other cases.

They are concerned that the government will be lobbied hard by animal rights radicals to stop that activity which they need to do to protect their livelihood. It is quite common for farmers to protect lambs at lambing season against predators such as coyotes and foxes. They need to know that they can do that and not fear being pursued by the government because radical animal activists have been pushing the government hard on this issue.

In northern parts of the country ravens are a problem. They go after the eyes of newborn livestock. Farmers and ranchers need to know that they can protect their livestock and property and that the government will support them. The government has failed to make its intentions clear by not allowing us to pass some of the amendments that the Canadian Alliance had proposed.

We are very concerned that the government is mixed up in its priorities. It seems to be on the verge of granting all kinds of rights to animals at the behest of radical animal activists while at the same time making the livelihood of farming and ranching very precarious. We urge the government to keep this in mind when it proposes to pass Bill C-15B. Other members on the government side who will speak to this come from rural areas.

I note for a fact that they are hearing from farmers and ranchers in their areas. I hope they will have the courage to stand and let the government know that it is unacceptable to start to raise the rights of animals up to the same plane as those of human beings. We are hearing that kind of rhetoric from animal activists.

Members must remember it is not unrealistic to suspect that animal activists will push very hard to take whatever crack that the government gives them in the legislation and pursue it in the courts to make it very difficult for farmers and ranchers to do what they need to do. We need to remember some of the statements that they have already made about going hard after government backbenchers who do not support their point of view. They have made public statements along those lines.

We also know that they have condoned violence and have used violence. They have acted as terrorists, blowing up trucks that belong to fish companies, for instance. They have done all kinds of things to protest the idea that people can own animals and that animals are not on the same plane as human beings.

We know what these people are willing to do and have done in the past. The government is playing far too much to their agenda by going as far as it has gone with Bill C-15B.

Canadian farmers and ranchers want one sign that the government is sensitive to the situation they are in today. So far in the House I cannot think of a single piece of legislation in the nine years I have been here where it has shown some awareness that there needs to be reform that favours farmers and ranchers and is not always against them.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would reflect what my colleague has just said. Clearly there is a concern about the abuse of animals. There is not one member of the House of Commons who is not concerned to see that steps are taken for proper protection of animals, but it is not quite that simple. The difficulty is that in this law we are opening up to attack a lot of people who own animals, whether they are domesticated animals or animals which are farmed.

I would like to read a couple of comments from people who love the kind of wording that is included in the legislation. The California based animal rights organization In the Defence of Animals, IDA, launched a campaign called “They are not our property; we are not their owners”. According to the IDA website the campaign proposes nothing less than to change society's relationship with animals. The following few quotations indicate that the campaign has strong support among animal rights activists. The quotations also reinforce the argument that the concept of property is fundamental to understanding the animal rights agenda.

Lynn Manheim, a columnist for Letters for Animals said:

Ultimately there can be no real progress until society undergoes a paradigm shift, a new way of looking at the world which opens the door to new systems of interacting with it. We have seen most strikingly with the women's movement, language plays an essential part in such a shift. Establishing legal rights for animals will be virtually impossible while they continue to be called and though of as “its” and “things”.

Alan Berger, executive director of the Animal Protection Institution said:

Animal Protection Institute is pleased to endorse IDA's They are not our Property...campaign. Society's perception of animals as property must be changed before legal rights for animals can be established. The time is right to make such a change.

This one is from Kristin von Kreisler, author of

The Compassion of Animals:

IDA's They are not our property campaign will prod us along in our moral evolution. Just as we have moved beyond “owning” people after the Civil War, we now need to move beyond “owning” animals, who deserve a far greater understanding in our society than simply being treated as property or things.

This is one from Jane Goodall of the Jane Goodall Institute:

In the legal sense, animals are regarded as “things”, mere objects that can be bought, sold, discarded or destroyed at an owner's whim. Only when animals can be regarded as “persons” in the eyes of the law will it be possible to give teeth to the often fuzzy laws protecting animals from abuse.

Let me repeat the objective of this particular activist: Only when animals can be regarded as persons in the eyes of the law will it be possible to give teeth to the often fuzzy laws protecting animals from abuse.

Those are the people and the organizations the government is not taking into account. The wording of its legislation is simply not precise enough to stop this kind of fuzzy headed thinking.

This quote is from Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, author of When Elephants Weep and

Dogs Never Lie About Love:

How can we own another person? We cannot. Why then should we think we can own another being, a dog, a cat or a horse? The law may tell us we can, but the law also told us in the past that men owned their wives, parents their children, slaveowners their slaves. I now realize how wrong it is to consider myself an animal “owner”. Language is no trivial matter, how we use it affects how we think and then how we act.

We can no longer own a dog, a cat or a horse. Perhaps this person would also like to give them the vote. I do not know. This is another quote:

I looked up the word “property” in the dictionary. It said, “a thing or things owned”. To me, this makes it clear that, by definition, animals can never be considered property. A “thing” cannot love. A “thing” cannot act from compassion. A “thing” will never risk its own life to help a stranger or even a friend.

This is so fuzzy it is almost, in my humble opinion, slightly humorous. But it is not humorous because we are talking about the lives and the livelihood of people who are involved in the agricultural industry.

We are talking about the potential effect of criminal prosecution against anybody who owns an animal. As human beings we can own animals. Let us be clear, that is exactly where I am coming from.

When we look at the various motions by the member for Selkirk--Interlake that clause 8 be deleted, if we are unable to pass the amendments that are required to prevent harassment prosecutions of farmers, ranchers, medical researchers and all other Canadians who use animals for their livelihood, we should delete the entire animal cruelty section. That is where we are coming from. We must be more precise.

There is another motion we will be opposing. It is Motion No. 4 by the member Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot which states:

That Bill C-15B, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 3 with the following:

“other animal that has the capacity to experience pain.”

We are opposing it because the amendment simply changes the definition of animal from a vertebrate other than a human being to any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain, with emphasis on the word feel, a vertebrate other than a human being and any other animal who has the capacity to experience pain. We are opposed to either definition as both broaden the term “animal” in the context of criminal code offences.

We are aggressively opposed to Bill C-15B for the simple reason that it opens the door to fuzzy headed thinking about the ownership of animals and the ability of people to work with animals within our society in the humane ways in which they are presently working with them.

Again I want to make it perfectly clear that every member of the Canadian Alliance and I as the member for Kootenay--Columbia are concerned about the potential abuse of animals, livestock and domestic animals. We are all concerned about that. However the proposed law does not cut it. It is far too imprecise. That imprecision will open the door to the potential criminal prosecution of people in my constituency and any other rural constituency where people are dealing with domesticated animals or livestock.

The member for Selkirk--Interlake has moved Motion No. 5 which states:

That Bill C-15B, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing line 7 on page 3 with the following:

“who, wilfully or recklessly, and in contravention of generally accepted industry standards,”

The amendment is designed to better protect farmers, ranchers, medical researchers and others who depend upon animals for their livelihood from nuisance prosecutions by animal rights activists. Any member in the House, anybody reading Hansard , anybody watching this debate on television who does not believe that the bill will not open farmers, ranchers and dog owners to the potential of criminal action as a result of the activity of animal rights activists probably does not know what day of the week it is.

The former Minister of Justice called on a number of amendments that will actually straighten out a certain amount of this badly flawed bill. We are not in opposition just to be in opposition. In fact with respect to Motion No. 6 the opposition will vote in favour of the government's amendment to its own bill. It takes some tiny steps toward resolving this imprecise situation of which I spoke.

We have gone over the bill with a fine-toothed comb. On balance, unfortunately there is a tremendous amount lacking and a tremendous amount of potential danger within Bill C-15B.

Species at Risk Act

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member opposite for her presentation. It takes courage to stand in the House against one's own government. I am pleased to see her do that. She puts a lot of time and effort into the environment committee and takes it seriously.

I commend the hon. member for Churchill River for his comments about aboriginal involvement. The aboriginals have a theory that anything we do must be considered seven generations down the road. Perhaps if we did that we would all be in better shape today.

There are a lot of things going on in legislation before the House that are of concern to people in rural areas of the country who make a living from the land, the sea and Canada's resources. The bounty we have in Canada is unbelievable.

Let us look at the logging sector. A softwood lumber dispute has the whole sector in crisis. It does not look like it will be resolved. Today is the day it should be resolved but it does not look like it will happen. A pine beetle infestation due to the mild winter is devastating the forests of British Columbia and putting the province's forestry industry in trouble.

Let us look at farming. Last year was a disastrous year from coast to coast in the agriculture community due to low commodity prices and drought. In my area of southern Alberta the drought is severe and has not yet given any indication it will let go. The foreign subsidies that drive down commodity prices and distort production are killing our farm communities.

Let us look at the fishermen who make their living from the sea. Let us look at the mismanagement that has taken place there. Fish stocks are running out. Fishermen in Canada can no longer make a living. An emergency debate on the whole fishing industry in Canada has been applied for and agreed to for this evening.

Yesterday we debated Bill C-15B on cruelty to animals, a bill which has a lot of people concerned in the rural parts of the country.

The list goes on. The resource sector in Canada is concerned about the Kyoto protocol and some of the things it could do. We have the species at risk legislation. Today a bill was introduced to modernize the Pest Control Products Act. The bill would have ramifications throughout the resource and agriculture sectors.

If we add all of these things together, and they keep piling up, it is no wonder people in the agriculture, resource and fishing industries are terrified about the things that could happen to them. If passed as it is some of the legislation could be far reaching and devastating to many sectors.

What does the government do when developing a bill? The opposition is involved in the process. The bill is sent to committee. Expert witnesses from across the country are brought in to give their opinions. People from different sectors are brought in to talk about the bill and the problems associated with it. Hundreds of hours are involved in the process. The government brings hundreds of witnesses to Ottawa at great expense. It is not only at great expense to the government. It is at great expense to the witnesses who take time to come and bear witness under the guise that what they say will be listened to.

The committee listened. It made amendment after amendment. It went through Bill C-5 clause by clause. As the previous speaker indicated, committee members from all parties worked together to come up with a bill everyone could agree with.

The bill left committee. Before it came back to the House the government introduced amendments to take it back to where it was before the committee had a chance at it. The hundreds of witnesses, all the hours and all the expense of bringing in expert witnesses to present their cases was thrown out. That is an absolute shame. It derides the value of committees. It derides the value of the House when a government can do that.

As we have heard, many members on the government side of the House are concerned about what has happened. They work in good faith at the committee level as we all do. What we put forward should be considered. It was completely thrown out. The consultation process we asked for at committee stage was completely ignored. We asked for consultation with all sectors. It happened but the advice was ignored.

I would not be surprised if in years to come we invited industry representatives to present at committees and they refused. They use their own time to come and testify and the government does not listen to them anyway, so why should they?

The consultation we asked for at this stage did not happen. We have asked for consultation after Bill C-5 is implemented. That has been eroded as well. We have put forward an amendment to take care of the issue.

The government is proposing that if the minister became aware of an endangered species he or she would not have to make it public. We agreed to this to a certain extent because if people wanted to come and look it could harm the endangered species. However the person or company who owns the land should be notified if a species is there. Whether an area is on water or land the people in control of it should know the species is there so they can help make arrangements to protect it.

Under Bill C-5 affected landowners would not be notified if endangered species were on their land. Let us think about that. There are people trying to make a living as ranchers, farmers or fishermen who may not realize there is an endangered species in the area. Let us suppose it somehow gets reported to the Minister of the Environment. If these people did something to harm the species all the power, weight and heavy handed approach of Bill C-5 would come to bear on them. The government has taken out the aspect of mens rea which says the harm must be done willingly. That is gone. It absolutely terrifies people to think this could happen.

Let us look at the resource sector. People working in the bush surveying or doing whatever they do may not know an endangered species is nearby. They would be inadvertently affected because the whole weight of Bill C-5 could be thrown at them including jail time and huge fines. That is absolutely wrong.

Consultation did take place but it was not heeded. That is a huge problem. The issue of consultation and proper notification of affected landowners needs to be addressed before Bill C-5 goes forward.

We talked about the compensation issue at other stages of the bill. The whole idea of consultation would affect the ultimate compensation. If landowners do not realize there are endangered species on their property and the Minister of the Environment moves to affect their livelihoods they should be fully compensated for the income they lose.

We have talked a lot about the urban rural split. There is not really a split. This is an issue for which all of society is responsible. A few people in urban centres cannot dictate to the entire rural population how to operate their farms, ranches or resource industries. If people in urban centres want to do that then all people need to be responsible for compensation under Bill C-5.

This is something we want as citizens and as a nation. Everyone wants legislation that will adequately protect species at risk. However if we do not do it in the proper way the bill will not protect endangered species. It will do more to harm them.

Consultation, compensation and the whole idea of jurisdiction need to be addressed before Bill C-5 can be an effective piece of legislation. We have the support of all opposition parties regarding the amendments that need to be turned down and the ones that need to be approved. I urge all government members to listen to the people from the environment committee, the hon. member for Davenport and others on that side of the House when they say the amendments need to be made for the legislation to truly work.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago we received a lot of data from census Canada showing that a shrinking number of Canadians live in what is truly called rural Canada.

The vast majority of people in Canada live in a centre of 10,000 plus. As a result of that, one can take a look at many bills that come before the House, certainly Bill C-5 at the present time. Bill C-5 only involves a very small group of people who live in the rural area.

Yesterday we discussed Bill C-15B. Were the people in the ranching business consulted? Was the dairy industry or the hog industry consulted? No. These people were not consulted and yet they are the ones who will be the most affected.

This morning in the veterans affairs committee we had what I considered very good consultation. We had a gentleman who was very knowledgeable about the subject and we asked questions and so on.

The vast majority of people who this bill would affect were never consulted. Today we have a new president of the Saskatchewan Stock Growers' Association. He lives in a little area north of the No. 1 highway in Gouldtown, Saskatchewan. Was the Saskatchewan Stock Growers' Association consulted about the effects of Bill C-5? No. Yet its members own millions of acres of grazing land and they were not consulted.

If we were going to pass legislation applicable to a mass urban area like Ottawa or Toronto, there would be public consultation all over the place but when we deal with basic, rural agricultural problems, it does not matter any more because if we took all the people engaged in agriculture and spread them across Canada there would not be a voting block anyway. It really would not change the composition of members in the House. It is not a big issue except for those who happen to live there.

I was in Guelph, Ontario two weeks ago. The people there asked me to give a talk on how the agri-industry could continue to operate with such bills as C-5, C-15B and Kyoto, especially since it was not consulted on any of them?

I have seen a lot of the government's perception of consultation. Some crown corporations that are going to raise their rates put advertisements in the paper and invite the public to come. Three people may show up. The most common thing heard is that the government will simply go ahead and act anyway.

I am familiar with a provincial government issuing an environmental regulation to a group of people who for years used particular patches of land for grazing their animals.

Instead of telling them they could only use the land for grazing during a certain period of the year, the ruling came down stating that the piece of land had to be divided into three sections and that only one of those sections could be grazed every third year to preserve the nesting of certain birds. In order to make that land worthwhile, they had to put in miles of ineffective fencing.

This is very strange legislation. If a landowner or a land renter accidentally hurts or kills a particular animal, he or she must prove due diligence; that is, that he or she did everything possible beforehand to find out if that endangered species was on the land.

When the Rafferty dam was created in Saskatchewan we found that rare species of animals, animals which had never lived in the area before, moved in because of the water. Some people who graze their cattle near that dam still do not know that those animals are there. Under this legislation they would have to prove that they were guilty without due knowledge of what was happening. That is contrary to every other law we have in Canada which states that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

I know what people will say. They will say that the government would never do that. I know people will say that we would have a logical excuse. However, under this bill, the landowner has to prove that he is innocent.

I really believe that we in rural Canada from coast to coast are being totally ignored. Yesterday we talked about the cruelty to animals bill. The government never once consulted, learned about or asked about established practices that have been going on in this country since before Confederation and yet, under the proposed legislation, it will have the right to give its interpretation of such things as suffering and the right to say that a particular practice will no longer continue even though it never consulted with the people involved prior to the bill coming to the House.

The committee which studied Bill C-5 never heard from the people actually involved in land ownership. We did have good representation from industry and from some cattlemen but we never really heard from the national cattlemen's organization.

The government has never had the courage to say that the practices, such as branding, which have been going on forever in this country, will no longer be required. Instead, it waits. Let it say that a person who has an endangered species without knowing it is guilty of not protecting it. How can we protect something if we do not know it is there?

I found some endangered species on a piece of property and I reported them. The owners of thee property and the environment people were very happy about that. However if an individual visits someone who owns land and a particular endangered species is destroyed unknowingly on that piece of land, such as being ridden over by a horse, or an endangered piece of vegetation was trampled on, then they are guilty. We have to go back and change that part of the bill.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond in the affirmative. The government's agenda is of course a fruitful one.

This afternoon, we will continue with report stage of the species at risk legislation, Bill C-5.

Tomorrow, we will return to debate on Bill C-50 respecting the WTO. If this is concluded, we will call Bill C-47, the excise amendments.

The two weeks following this one constitute the Easter adjournment. When we return on April 8 we will resume debate on criminal code amendments, Bill C-15B, and commence consideration of the pest control legislation that the Minister of Health has introduced today.

In addition there is a very lengthy agenda of important business for Canadians. I look forward to the ample co-operation of all members of the House of Commons to move forward in an expeditious manner.

Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the amendments to Bill C-15B.

The bill has been before the House for some time. It was before the House as part of an even broader omnibus bill but after pressure from the opposition, that bill was split. It was the right thing to do, but it is still a very broad reaching bill.

Today we are discussing the amendments that have been put forth on the legislation.

The Canadian Alliance has concerns about this legislation because of the not only possible but the probable impact on farmers, trappers and other people who work with animals as a way of making a living.

Most of us know that no one treats their animals better than farmers do. Many of my neighbours half jokingly have said to me that if their husbands or wives treated them as well as they treated the cows, the horses or the other animals, they would be delighted. The point is that farmers are good custodians of animals. Good husbandry is something to be expected of farmers. It is a rare exception when animals are treated in any way but an exemplary fashion by farmers.

For that reason and for other reasons, we have great concerns about the legislation going ahead unamended. The impact will be substantial. People who only have the best intentions and really care about animals will be impacted in a negative way.

That is why we and others have put forth amendments which will at least change this legislation to make it something which we could support. No party in the House has a more deep appreciation of animals and caring for animals than the Canadian Alliance has. There are many people in our caucus who live on farms, who have worked with animals on farms and therefore understand that animals must be treated extremely well.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to speak to Bill C-15B which contains unfortunately provisions that are continuations of some of the greatest flaws in the legislative drafting practices of the current government. It behooves us to look at what some of these themes are and to think about what could be done to avoid doing them both in this law and other laws in the future.

There are three themes. First, this is an omnibus bill, but not as bad as it started off being. However it is still an omnibus bill dealing with more than one topic. Second, it strips basic legal protections from individuals who are accused of making offences under the law. This is a current theme that is also quite strong in Liberal legislative drafting practices. Third, it contains vague regulatory guarantees and requires us to take it on faith that the government would undertake the protections that it has refused to place within the law. At the very same time we are finding these guarantees withheld we are told to trust the government. The guarantees would be placed in the regulations at a later point in time subject to the government's arbitrary will.

These are three themes that are strongly present in the general legislative practices of the government. For example, Bill C-36 was an extraordinary omnibus bill that contained provisions like rules relating to the Internet and appointment of judges as well as the enactment of provisions relating to preventative search and detention, and provisions that related to the enactment of United Nations conventions and so on.

This law follows the same general pattern. It contains unrelated provisions dealing with cruelty to animals and dealing with firearms. I cannot see any reason why these two subject matters are contained in the same bill. There is no logical connection between them whatsoever.

The bill was worse before. It contained measures relating to child pornography which fortunately were split away from the bill and are now contained in Bill C-15A.

It is difficult to deal intelligently and to vote rationally on a bill that is effectively a package deal, a part of which might or might not be acceptable to an individual member. How does one vote one's conscience when something good and bad is contained in the same bill?

To some degree we have divided the good from the bad in the bill, but the bill should have been subdivided into several sub-measures.

This is a trend that has existed in Canadian legislative practice for some length of time. It has been a disastrous practice that nearly split up the country on some occasions. I am thinking of the Meech Lake accord which contained five unrelated constitutional amendments as a single package. They all had to be passed. Most Canadians were quite comfortable with certain aspects of the Meech Lake accord. Other aspects were quite contentious, particularly the distinct society clause. However they all had to be done together.

The Charlottetown accord was even worse. It was a package that effectively would have gutted the entire Constitution and cobbled it back together in a vast document that was several times as long as the entire United States constitution. It was presented as a single package deal. Had it been broken into a series of smaller items not all of them could have be passed, but many could have been. Some of them were good; a lot of them were terrible.

This practice has continued on in Bill C-15B and it should be stopped. It should not be a practice that occurs at all in Canadian legislation.

I will turn to the stripping of basic legal protections. This is another thing that occurs frequently in current Liberal legislation. I recall Bill C-36 and the way in which basic legal protections of Canadians were stripped away under the preventive detention provisions of that bill. That bill made it possible to be prosecuted for one's religious beliefs. Amazing, but true.

Bill C-5 has provisions which I am attempting to amend. I have several amendments before the House that deal with the question of mens rea, whether one must have a guilty mind prior to being found guilty of destroying an animal habitat or destroying an endangered species. That law denies the requirement that one must have a guilty mind, a mens rea, in order to be found culpable.

This law does much the same thing. I will say it is not as bad in this respect as Bill C-5, but it is still problematic. It takes the aspects of the criminal code that deal with animal cruelty and removes them from the property offences section and moves them to a special new section.

I cannot determine what the legislative reason for this is, that is to say what is the need for this, but I can determine what the result would be. The result is we would remove the various protections that are built in under the property parts of the criminal code. There are certain basic protections that are not accompanying this section of the law as it moves from one part of the criminal code to the other.

The phrase legal justification or excuse and with colour of right in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence. That would cease to be available as a protection.

It is a funny thing that those on the government side of the House are always happy to attack members on this side of the House as somehow being out to strip those who are accused of offences against the law of their legal protections and legal rights. The fact is, and the record will show this, it has been entirely the other way during the course of the government.

This law would strip those who are accused of offences of basic protections. Protections, which are inherent to our traditional rule of law, to the common law, and to our entire legal structure, would once again be stripped out in Bill C-15B, Bill C-5, and Bill C-36. This is a consistent, unacceptable, inexcusable and entirely avoidable pattern.

The meritorious goals found in parts of each of these three pieces of legislation could all have been achieved without stripping Canadians of these basic legal protections. They are absolutely not needed. That should be corrected in this law. Or, potentially, if the government were unwilling to protect it, then the law in my opinion, on that basis alone, should be dropped from the order paper.

I want to turn to the offer of vague regulatory guarantees that protections which are not included in the law would be included later on. We are told by the minister that this would be taken care of. There would be protections for those who are accused or charged, but they would not be included in the law, they would be included elsewhere.

The record of governments, not this government in particular but of governments in general, of protecting individuals administratively when they are not protected by law is very poor. That is the whole reason why our system of government is based upon the rule of law.

I encourage the minister and all members of the government to look at the classic academic text written by Albert Venn Dicey which deals with the question of the rule of law. It is a book called An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution published in the 1880s and republished in many editions prior to Dicey's death around the time of the first world war. He deals with the question of the rule of law at length.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-15 regarding cruelty to animals. I am in a sense sorry to have to do this because we certainly support the intent of the legislation, which has as its objective to modernize the law and increase penalties for offences related to animal cruelty. Unfortunately, we believe there are some areas that need to have greater attention and that have caused undue fear among some sectors of our society, especially agriculture and animal husbandry and those kinds of things. I believe we have to listen to those people and take them into consideration. It is unfortunate that it has been so difficult to get this across and to see changes made that would adequately address these fears that people have.

Agricultural groups, farmers, industry workers and medical researchers have all consistently said that they welcome the amendments to the criminal code that would clarify and strengthen provisions relating to animal cruelty and that they do not condone intentional animal abuse or neglect in any way. It is not that these groups do not agree with protecting animals. It is more that they disagree with the way we are trying to go about it than anything else.

The Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association, in a letter to me this week, wrote about its members' concerns. First, its members state:

Moving the animal cruelty provisions out of Part XI of the Criminal Code and moving them to Part VI is inappropriate. Animals are property and do not have equal rights to humans--inclusion of the provisions as a subsection of the Sexual Offences, Public Morals and Disorderly Conduct equals animal and human rights. If this move is legally justified, the title of Part VI should be changed to “Cruelty to Animals: Private and Public Property”.

The association has the phrase “animals are property and do not have equal rights to humans” in bold.

The association in its second concern states:

If the animal cruelty provisions are moved to a new section, we request the inclusion of the words “legal justification, excuse and colour of right”. This currently applies to the animal cruelty provisions by virtue of subsection 429(2).

Third, the association states:

The definition of animal to include “any animal capable of feeling pain” is far too broad and should be dropped. Dr. Clement Gauthier stated in his testimony to the Standing Committee that scientists do not yet agree on what animals feel pain and the definition is broader than that of the Canadian Council on Animal Care. Dr. Gauthier's opinion was supported by the Criminal Lawyers' Association.

This association is just one of many organizations with concerns about this law. We share those concerns. We also share the understanding that we do need to guard against some of the horrendous acts of cruelty that do occasionally happen to animals. However, we also understand that there are differences in viewpoints from some people to others, from those who have only seen the little pets in the house to those who have grown up on the farm and have had to deal with some of the realities of life on the farm with animals.

What are some of the main concerns we want to address here? One is that in the legislation there seems to be less protection for those involved in animal husbandry. I use that word because I want to define husbandry. It is interesting that we would attach that word to the science of taking care of animals.

Knowing something of biblical things I am aware that the Bible talks about what it takes to be a good husband. A husband is one who gives his utmost for the proper care of a wife.

In scripture we find the husbandman of a vineyard. That husbandman is responsible for the very best care of that vineyard but sometimes that care includes pruning and digging around the base. Occasionally some plants must have their roots trimmed and different things. Different plants require different things for that husbandman to take care of them.

That certainly is the case when it comes to animal husbandry. Certain kinds of animals require to be hurt in order for them to be unable to cause greater damage to others in the herd or in the flock as the case may be. Those who raise turkeys or chickens must sometimes take precautions to keep them from injuring one another.

We talked about the dehorning of cattle. That is for the protection of the owner, the husbandman of the cattle, the one that is responsible for the entire herd not just for that one animal. For someone who has never seen a horn taken off of an animal it is a gory sight. The horn is taken off so that it cannot gore something, but it is a bloody sight. If people with a bend toward protecting animals were to see that they would be very upset because it is an upsetting sight.

One of our speakers talked about the paste that his father used to put on the young bull calf's horn to keep it from growing. That was a newer technology causing hopefully less pain. I can see a time when a number of operations on a cattle raising operation might reach a new level which might be less harmful or less painful to an animal. If a particular rancher could not afford it, did not know about it or had not made that change in technology, he or she could foreseeable be arrested simply because of using an older method.

We heard from the former justice minister that what is legal and lawful today would continue to be legal and lawful and she would see to that. However, as the House knows, we have a new Minister of Justice who might not necessarily agree with that stance.

I want to mention the difference between animal welfare and animal rights. We believe that it is a huge step. It is a part of an outside if not a hidden inside agenda, but at least it is an agenda of organizations on the outside to try to get the status of animals raised to equal the status of human beings. We ought to first work a little harder at protecting human beings.

There are humans that are killed legally every day in Canada. We do not seem to be worried about that. This is simply because of choices of convenience. We ought to be worried about our own survival as well.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House today to take part in this debate on Bill C-15B, entitled an act to amend the criminal code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and to amend the Firearms Act.

I want to begin by stating categorically that I am a great lover of animals. I have a wonderful little dog at home that is probably the joy of my little girl's life and probably thinks I am the best guy in the world too. It is not a question of us on this side of the House and in this party not loving animals or caring for them. We certainly do.

I think that perhaps in our society very often we see great pendulum swings in the mood of society, in the way we approach social issues. If there is a great public outcry about a certain subject, the pendulum swings one way. Then it swings the other way as there is a public outcry on the other side of the issue. It is quite clear in our society, particularly North American society, and with the increase in technological advances and communication we have heard of a number of recent incidents in which animals have been used cruelly and sometimes killed outright by people who have absolutely no right to ever do anything like that.

I suppose that in response to those kinds of incidents, about which we have all heard, there are definitely lobby groups in our society that have pushed the government to bring in stricter laws and stricter controls in terms of cruelty to animals. Of course the government has also lumped in a bunch of other things in the bill, just to confuse the issue.

The stated purpose of the bill, of course, is to amend the criminal code by consolidating animal cruelty offences and increasing the maximum penalties. The bill also adds administrative provisions that are intended to simplify applications for the Firearms Act. Bill C-15B reintroduces the proposed amendments to the cruelty to animals provisions of the criminal code that were introduced in Bill C-17 during the last parliament, with certain changes. We remember some of the outcry at that time about this legislation. Unfortunately, even though there are a few minor improvements to this legislation, there are many people out there in our country who are very concerned about the legislation. In particular, people who are engaged in the harvesting and husbandry of animals for their livelihoods have a great number of concerns about the bill.

I know that government legislation cannot satisfy everybody. It will not satisfy everybody. However, when sufficiently large numbers of people in our country have registered tremendous disapproval of the bill, it is important for us as legislators to take into account their concerns. There are a number of groups across the country that simply do not feel the government is listening to their concerns. They do not feel that we have to go this far to satisfy one group and to perhaps somehow eliminate cruelty to animals.

What we are saying in our opposition to a number of clauses in the bill is that we do not have to go this far. One concern with the bill is that the definition of the word “animal” is far too broad. The proposed definition of animal in Bill C-15B includes non-human vertebrates and all animals having “the capacity to feel pain”.

Let me show how we can go from the sublime to the ridiculous on something like this. I happen to be a fisherman. That is what I do with my spare time outside the House of Commons. Of course I would rather be here, but in those times when I cannot be here I go fishing, I work in my garden or I take my wife out to dinner, not particularly in that order of priority, but we do have lives outside the House, do we not? I enjoy fishing.

Fishing, of course, means that at times one has to put a worm on a hook. Unfortunately I have not been able to communicate very well with the bait I use, so I have no authoritative voice with which to say whether or not the worm I use actually feels pain. However, in the enjoyment of my sport, shared with perhaps millions of others in the country, I have come to the conclusion that it is probably okay for me to do that and to pursue fishing without the possibility of coming under some kind of cloud of suspicion that I am being cruel to the worm.

However, there just may be someone in my area or in the country who feels otherwise. It is quite possible that some day I might have worm police knocking on my door to tell me I am being cruel to the worms and that under the provisions of Bill C-15B, which would have been passed in the House by that time, they have to take me into custody.

Of course, that would never occur, would it? To go from the sublime to the ridiculous in such a way simply could not happen, could it? However, it might just happen and it might happen for anybody else engaged in any sporting activity in the country that has long been recognized as recreational or that sometimes, for the benefit of those who need the food, is something that is quite legitimate and within the law.

When we see the pendulum in our society move from one pole to the other, very often things like this get caught in the middle. I believe, and I am sure many of my hon. colleagues in the House believe, that we need to have balance in the legislation. The government is not providing balance.

Another key concern is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection presently afforded to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. Think of all the farmers across the country who are engaged in animal husbandry of some kind or another who could possibly, and I am not saying that they would, be brought before the bar of justice because under the legislation they would be accused of somehow being cruel to animals. What does that do to the agricultural community in the country, which is suffering more and more every day? It is just one more nail in the coffin of the agricultural community in many ways.

We ought to think very carefully about these kinds of considerations and consequences before we pass this kind of draconian legislation.

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today and say a few words regarding Bill C-15B, which is an act to amend the criminal code, specifically cruelty to animals and firearms.

I have spent the last 35 years of my life in agriculture, raising cattle and horses and I have had farm dogs. I now have an eight pound Maltese that pretty much rules our household, so I think I speak with a certain amount of expertise.

However, I think I bring some expertise to the debate. I find it rather ironic that the urban lobby obviously has had so much influence into the writing of the bill and has put a yoke around agriculture's neck. Without a profitable agriculture industry, people in the urban centres will get hungry in a hurry. They are dependent on agriculture producers being efficient and providing them with not only an abundant, but a cheap source of food.

When I read things in the bill such as clause 182.2(b) which says:

(1) Every one commits an offence who, wilfully or recklessly,

(b) kills an animal or, being the owner, permits an animal to be killed, brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately;

Livestock producers allow their animals to be killed. We are now saying that because this was done wilfully someone would decide, probably in a court, whether it was done recklessly. They would probably also decide in a court whether the animal was killed brutally or viciously, and that is all very subjective. It is not something that can be defined easily. It would be left up to people who probably any aspect of cattle husbandry would be a revelation them. It would be left up to people in the city, probably a jury of people who did not know anything about cattle or animal husbandry, to define whether I allowed my stock to be killed brutally or viciously or that I wilfully allowed them to be killed and was reckless about it, even though the animal died immediately.

I said that I have been farming for 35 years. I have not figured out a way that I could eat beef without first killing the cow. It has to die before it can be eaten. It is just common sense. It is the same thing with a chicken.

I know there are many producers in the House. I know there are many people here who produce cattle. I know we certainly have some very prominent chicken producers in this parliament as well. I cannot understand why more members of the government are not objecting to the way the bill is written. I think it is ridiculous.

I believe that this will be a millstone hung around the neck of agricultural producers and we do not need it. We already have to put up with low commodity prices, with the uncertainties of weather, too much precipitation or too little precipitation, pests and diseases in our crops, our cattle and in our livestock in general. There is the possibility of all kinds of other problems, weed infestations and so forth with which we have to put up. To have this very subjective piece of legislation placed on us is something we certainly do not need.

The past minister speaking at second reading in this place has said “what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent”. That is what the minister promised in the House. She also went on to say that these changes would in no way negatively affect the many legitimate activities that involved animals, such as hunting, farming, medical or scientific research. I take some comfort in that statement.

However, if the previous minister was sincere about that, and I assume she was, then why has the present minister not simply put that into the legislation? Although I am not a lawyer, I believe that would go a long way in alleviating some of the concerns that the agriculture industry has.

One of the things that the minister mentioned was hunting. I used to hunt too. Before I got this job, I had time to do lots of things. I was able to go big game hunting. My goal in hunting was to find an animal for which I had a proper licence, to kill it as quickly as I could, usually with a shot to the head, neck or lungs, which would knock the animal down. I would rush there and let the blood out of the animal which helped to cool the body as part of the process of butchering. I would kill the animal as quickly as I possibly could.

In the law of physics on rifles and so forth, if the bullet on the way between me and the animal should actually touch a branch or something, it will deflect a certain amount and it may miss my target by as much as foot of where I actually shot, hit the animal and knock it down. However the animal may would jump up and run off into the bush before I have the chance to get another shot at it.

Hunters under those circumstances have absolutely the best of intentions but, through no fault of their own and through extenuating circumstances, have these wounded animals run off on them. Hunters do their utmost best to track that animal down, dispatch it, put it out of its misery and take the meat home. That is the object of going hunting. I never was one of those hunters who went out strictly for the trophies. I went there because I like wild meat. I like elk, moose and deer. Those are the animals we hunted in the foothills of Alberta.

I see that as a problem. This proposed legislation will effectively drive a stake through the heart of hunters. Hunting is a very important thing. The most dangerous North American animal is not the grizzly bear, the wolf, the wolverine or any of those carnivores. It is the white-tailed deer. The reason it is the most dangerous animal in North America is more people are killed hitting white-tailed deer on the highways with their cars or dodging them and getting into oncoming traffic than by any other animal in North America.

Do members know anybody who has hit a deer? I think everybody in this place knows somebody who has hit a deer. I have hit them myself. One day my wife was going down the road and I told her that if she saw a deer about to cross the road, or if one crossed in front of her, to slow down. Where there is one deer there will be others and they follow one behind the other. She did exactly as I suggested. She slowed down, missed the first deer and watched another one run by. Then a deer came out and ran into the side of her car. Even though my wife was stopped, she got hit by a deer.

That probably is a sideline to the point I was trying to get across. My point is this legislation is not accomplishing what it is attempting to accomplish. I agree with what it is attempting to do. I agree that we should be touch on people who intentionally are cruel to animals. I know that the farmers I have as neighbours would never intentionally do that. If they fail to provide adequate feed, bedding and water, it simply takes money out of their back pockets because the animals do so poorly.

Anyone who deliberately neglects animals or is cruel to them ought to be punished very severely. However this is having a punishing effect on people who are legitimately trying to make a living and provide food for our friends in the cities.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and add my comments to the bill under discussion.

The issue has raised more interest in my constituency than many others. I just completed a tour of two dozen communities in my riding. It is a rural riding composed of a great many communities, most of whom are dependent on the agriculture industry. Within the communities there is tremendous concern about Bill C-15B because of the importance of the agriculture industry. In reviewing the correspondence I have received and the views of various organizations regarding the issue I find myself supportive of the concerns expressed by a number of the groups.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture whose president is fellow Manitoban Mr. Bob Friesen has communicated to me its concerns about a number of issues. Not the least of these is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same legal protection currently given to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. That is a serious concern. I am sure it is not held by farmers alone. However most farmers engaged in the business of livestock will have concerns about that aspect of the bill.

Concerns have come to me from other groups as well. Keystone Agricultural Producers, a Manitoba farm association, is a strong and active group. It has communicated concerns about animal cruelty provisions being moved from the general classification of property offences into a separate section of their own. It is concerned that elevating the status of animals from property could cause significant detriment to legitimate livestock dependent businesses. A great many of these operate across Canada but my riding in particular is home to a tremendous number of them.

I do not mean to single out any one group, but in my riding of Portage--Lisgar a number of Hutterite colonies are actively involved in livestock industries. More Hutterite colonies that operate agricultural enterprises dealing with livestock are in my riding than any other riding in Canada. This concern is shared by the hon. member for Provencher who has done such a tremendous job in advocating against this piece of legislation.

My colleague from the region, the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake who is our agriculture critic, has similar concerns. We are afraid agricultural operations would be negatively affected by the legislation.

Although concerns about the bill are not limited to agricultural organizations I have had numerous communications from organizations such as the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association which is concerned about the definition of animal. The definition is so broad, subjective and ambiguous it could include non-human vertebrates and any animal that has the capacity to feel pain. Livestock operators concerned about pests on their property might be so impeded they would be unable to operate their businesses effectively for profit.

The legitimate concerns of farm organizations have not been addressed by the government's proposed amendments.

As I said, concerns about the bill are not exclusive to agricultural organizations. I will quote a letter written by Mr. Pierre Burton, a well known Canadian, on behalf of Canadians for Medical Progress Inc. He states:

However, some amended components of this section of the bill as drafted could have serious and paralyzing consequences on medical science. Essentially, they will remove animals as property, and will be interpreted as conferring person-like status on animals. In my opinion, this is an asinine, ludicrous approach towards solving the problem of animal abuse.

Many Canadians are concerned this is a wrong headed piece of legislation, and legitimately so.

Recently in Manitoba protests have been staged by so-called animal rights activists. For some time in our province we have seen protests designed to disrupt legitimate livestock operations. These groups seem willing to go to schoolyards and tell children that milk causes cancer. They dump hundreds if not thousands of gallons of animal waste on the streets to protest against what is called the Pregnant Mare Urine operation. Manitoba now has dozens of these protests.

The sensationalizing of concern to the detriment of legitimate farm operations has frightened many farmers and people who support the agricultural industry. It makes them fearful that people such as Liz White, director of the Animal Alliance of Canada, are not sincere when they say the ramifications of the legislation would have no impact on agricultural producers. Yet when we look at the past records of such organizations we cannot help but be concerned.

I will quote from a fundraising letter Ms. White put out for her organization. These organizations depend on sensationalizing their programs so they can raise funds from principally urban people who think every living creature is a Walt Disney creature that should be treated like their little chihuahua dog. There is a difference but Liz White does not seem to think so. She states:

Bill C-15B, which makes changes to the animal cruelty section of the Criminal Code, recognizes for the first time that animals are not just “property,” but rather beings in their own right who feel pain and are therefore deserving of legal protections.

I can't overstate the importance of this change. This elevation of animals in our moral and legal view is precedent setting and will have far, far reaching effects. We'll make sure of that.

That is a threat. It is a threat to farmers, fishermen and hunters in my area and across Canada. It is a threat that they will see protests about the size of their poultry cages, the way they look after their hogs, or their failure to massage their ducks' bellies frequently enough to satisfy this group. It is a threat to people who milk cows. It is a threat to people who make their living in an industry under attack by the government and by circumstances not of its own making.

Bill C-15B would continue the Liberal government's sad trend of pitting rural people against urban people in a destructive way. We can look at Bill C-68, the firearms legislation. We can look at the way the government has ignored the need for infrastructure and renewal of roads and drainage systems in western Canada since the end of the Crow rate. We can look at the species at risk legislation under which farmers would be assumed guilty and not innocent. Unlike the minister of defence who was assumed innocent on the basis of ignorance, farmers could be ignorant and assumed guilty. It is something of a contradiction.

This is the problem we have with the government. It does not seem to understand that respecting landowners and people who practise agriculture and animal husbandry is a far better approach to making legislation that protects animals than the approach it is taking. The government's approach is disrespectful and sad.

I will quote a letter I received from the Bob Friesen of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, an organization concerned about the issue. It says:

The government has been working hard to move agriculture beyond crisis management--

I take exception to that aspect of the letter. However it goes on:

--so it would be counterproductive if this proposed legislation ties up farmers' time and money in frivolous court cases.

That is exactly what it would do. That is what it is designed to do. Farmers do not need the hassle. They have enough challenges without adding Bill C-15B to the pie.

The letter from Bob Friesen goes on to state:

--we are not convinced this proposed legislation will prevent generally accepted and best methods of animal management from being brought before the courts.

That is not at all the way to deal fairly with farmers. I grew up on a farm. Our family has a century farm in Manitoba. I understand very well how our agricultural producers have treated their livestock. They treat it well because their livelihood depends on the mutualism of the relationship.

I far sooner would trust the farmers of my riding to protect their animals, their livestock and look after them well than I would ever trust the government or anyone who drew up a bill like this. It is a shame and a sham. The government should withdraw it.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-15B is part of the bill we had asked the justice minister for some time to separate. This has been done and we appreciate that because there were two very conflicting aspects in one bill. One aspect was cruelty to animals. The other dealt with the protection of our children from child pornography and luring on the Internet. We appreciated that aspect and supported that part, but we had some concerns with the cruelty to animals portion.

As my colleague has stated, we in no way condone cruelty to animals. There should be strong legislation in place to deal with anyone who abuses animals in any way. Our concern comes when we look at the agricultural community, people who raise and use animals in their businesses, such as fishermen and farmers.

We are concerned that if certain aspects of the bill are carried out to the degree we think some people will want to push them, it will put animal husbandry practices into question and it will put the people who raise the food we need in harm's way. The whole issue of protecting animals is a balancing act, as is every bill that comes to the House. We cannot go too far one way or we intrude in one area, but we have to go far enough to make sure that what we are trying to do gets done. This is no exception.

We have received in my office, as I am sure have all members in the House, countless letters of support for the bill from animal rights groups. They are doing their job. They are making sure we are aware that this legislation is in front of us, that we need to be aware that cruelty to animals is a problem and that there needs to be strong legislation to protect animals. On the other side we also are receiving letters from people who are concerned for the way of life they have created and the fact that the bill, if it is put into law the way it exists, could very well jeopardize the actions that they take.

People in the agricultural industry and the people who deal with animals are very cognizant of how to treat animals. They do it in the best way they can because it is to their advantage to do that. An animal that is treated properly is one that meets the requirements of the final process. There are all kinds of examples I could put forward about the industry which has governed itself. It has brought forward its own means of regulation to make sure that what is done and what the animals face is right.

The University of Lethbridge is in my riding. Like many universities across the country, it does research. That is another aspect where we have to make sure the animals are treated properly. We have seen a huge movement in the right direction as far as how animals that are kept for research are handled. On the other hand we have seen some people outside the research circles who really do need firm legislation and should be put out of business. That hopefully is where the legislation will lead. We hope it will not lead to the detriment of research and to our agricultural community in general.

We have brought forward suggestions from time to time on what we think needs to be done with some aspects of the bill regarding protection of animals. We hope the government will recognize that the concerns we are bringing forward are indeed legitimate and need to be addressed. If the government can in any way through changes to this legislation recognize all sides of the issue, then that is what should be done to make sure people can buy into this and buy into the fact that our animals need to be protected and treated fairly.

One of ways Bill C-15B differs from Bill C-17 that was before the last parliament is that a person would have to act willfully or recklessly in killing or harming an animal. Many organizations, businesses and individuals have a significant concern with respect to this aspect of the bill, namely that we would need to prove a person was wilful and reckless in his or her treatment. The bill could then come into effect and the law could be applied to the person.

The intent of Bill C-15B is fine. Cruelty to animals is something many of us do not understand. However we need to make sure the bill does not go too far. It must not hamper legal and rightful agricultural producers and others by wrongly accusing them of cruelty.

The idea of elevating the status of animals from property into something higher has many people concerned and rightly so. It would open up a whole different area of legal challenges. At what point would we stop? Do plants feel pain? We would be opening up a whole new area that could and would be challenged because there are people who would take it to the maximum degree.

The definition of animal under the bill would include non-human vertebrates and other animals that have the capacity to feel pain. The definition marks a significant departure. It would provide protection for an extremely wide range of living organisms which have never before been afforded this kind of legal protection. This piece of legislation would change the scope of what is currently in place.

The definition has practical difficulties. As worded it could cause enormous problems by extending the criminal law to invertebrates, cold blooded species such as fish, and an extremely wide variety of domestic and wild animals. It would affect the entire fishing industry by raising concerns about how hooks should be baited and how fish are handled after they are caught. It should be done in a humane way but it still needs to be done.

We have asked the government to delete or modify the definition but it has not. The issue could be a major concern as the bill proceeds.

The previous justice minister assured us in a speech that activities that are lawful and legitimate today would remain lawful after the bill received royal assent. The statement was intended to put at ease some of the concerns being raised at the time. She promised the House the changes would in no way negatively affect the many legitimate activities that involve animals such as hunting, farming or medical and scientific research.

We hope we can hold the new justice minister to the words of his predecessor. The words mean a lot. They have gone a long way to relieving the concerns of some people. We hope we can make sure they come true.

The previous justice minister's statement was self evident but it could be misleading. She said the provisions would not prevent legitimate activities from being carried out but that the law would proscribe only illegal activities. That is a bit of a play on words that negates what she meant to say in the first place. We are concerned the new provisions would narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activity.

These are just some of the issues. As Bill C-15B progresses through the House and we get an opportunity to rise and speak to it we will bring out other aspects.

We in our party support cruelty to animals legislation. However we want to make sure it addresses the issue without invading other parts of society.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-15B, the cruelty to animals bill, is a war on the agricultural industry and the fishing industry in Canada. Farmers, ranchers and fishers must be made aware that the bill will negatively affect their livelihood. This is not fearmongering. This is reality.

The justice minister said that the bill will not change things, that what was lawful before will still be lawful. If the bill has no effect, then what is its purpose to the agricultural industry and fishers?

We are told that the bill will not affect legitimate practices. What it does do is narrow the definition of what those legitimate practices are. This will have a huge effect on animal based businesses and practices.

I live in a rural area on a farm. The legislation causes huge problems for the surrounding farms and ranches in the area. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has moved into our province. Under its mandate we cannot put a culvert in a road that goes between two sloughs on our farm because we might affect the fish population. There has not been a fish in our sloughs as long as I have lived there. In fact, it is hard for the frogs to live there.

That shows what happens when bureaucracy goes amok. The rules and regulations of the fisheries department make no sense whatsoever to prairie farmers. Fisheries people have been moved from the oceans to central Saskatchewan to make rules and regulations. That scares me because the same thing could happen in the bill.

Animal rights groups have said that in order to be proven effective, the legislation will have to be challenged in court. Agriculturalists and fishers could have their whole lifestyle as well as their livelihood taken away from them because of this legislation. We have to make sure that Canadian chicken farmers and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association understand what is in the bill and that they look at it closely.

My husband and I are environmentalists. My husband has farmed for over 36 years. He is one of the first no-till farmers in our area. He looks after the land. He has stopped the land from blowing away. He looks after the environment. We protect our animals.

Under this law if someone complained that a cow was fenced in, the cow would be allowed to roam free. That has not happened for a long time in the prairies and I hope it never happens again.

This is what lies ahead for our agricultural industry if we do not speak against the legislation and if we do not challenge the government to change the bill to help us. We look after our animals. We will not abuse animals. We do everything not to hurt them. We have to make sure that the bill does not go through.

Animal rights groups have said that the government will have to take agriculturalists and fishers to court. Court challenges lie ahead for fishers and the agricultural industry. Hardworking Canadians cannot afford to fight court battles against well-funded activist groups.

My colleague's motion which would seek wilful and reckless actions as being guidelines for prosecution would help to protect farmers, ranchers, researchers and others with legitimate animal based occupations from nuisance prosecutions. As we saw in Bill C-5, the government is content to categorize all actions as criminal. There must be protection in place for those with legitimate uses for animals.

How can we criminalize every young or old hunter who wants to shoot an animal for food? How can we penalize those people? They need those animals for food. They buy a licence to hunt. The animals are used for food. Many people only eat animals they harvest from the wild. We cannot make that against the law.

The agricultural industry in Canada has been abandoned by the government. Legislation such as Bill C-15B will do additional damage to an already struggling business, a business that is groping for anything that can help it. It does not need to be loaded down with any more rules and regulations by a government that wants to impose them on us.

Moving animals from property offences into the criminal code leads us away from animal welfare into the land of animal rights. This is a scary proposition for many Canadians who use animals for legitimate purposes.

The very definition of animal in the legislation needs to be changed. The current definition is far too broad. It is too inclusive and will lead to problems for law-abiding citizens.

A leisurely day of fishing can now be met with court challenges on animal cruelty. How many times have we sat in a boat and fished? How many times have we sat on the edge of a riverbank with our grandchildren to enjoy a wonderful afternoon of fishing? That could be challenged in court.

The Canadian government would like to assure Canadians that petty things like that will not happen. The legislation however opens the door for exactly that scenario. The government's blatant pandering to special interests is horrific. A letter from the Animal Alliance of Canada is a perfect example:

Bill C-15B, which makes changes to the animal cruelty section of the Criminal Code, recognizes for the first time that animals are not just 'property', but rather beings in their own right...I can't overstate the importance of this change...It started in the last federal election. Because of a commitment by the (previous) Minister of Justice in the House of Commons to pass Bill C-15B (we) campaigned for her re-election. Under attack by hunters and gun owners and a cabal of extremist right wing groups, (she) was in a losing campaign. (We) stepped in a championed her election...(she) won by 700 votes.

Instead of championing for the stability of law-abiding animal based industries and businesses, the government caters to a special interest group. That is totally unbelievable.

My colleagues and I in no way support cruelty to animals. However we do support law-abiding Canadians who are involved in animal based businesses and industry. We cannot support the bill as it stands since it seriously jeopardizes Canadians from engaging in legal, moral and ethical animal practices.

The government must look at the broader picture and the repercussions the bill will have on the industry instead of its blatantly pandering to lobby groups that have no idea of what they can do to the economy of the agricultural community and the fishing industry.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I was particularly interested in a lot of the things that the member for Souris--Moose Mountain had to say. It would behoove the Liberal members opposite to be interested in what he had to say.

The bill clearly pits rural Canada against urban Canada. Unfortunately we have allowed the concerns of a few to dictate and prejudice the concerns of many.

Not only is the legislation ill-founded and ill-fated, both pieces of the bill, the cruelty to animal section and the gun registration section, makes criminals out of honest citizens. It is past time that we stopped doing that.

I do not think there is anyone in the House who is against modernizing the cruelty to animals legislation, but this legislation is not it. This is terrible legislation that would affect this nation from coast to coast and make criminals out of honest citizens.

The member for Souris--Moose Mountain spoke about farm practices that we do all the time, whether we are in Alberta, in western Canada, or in Nova Scotia. Castration and tail docking for lambs are farm practices carried out every day. They are not carried out with intentional cruelty. They are not done in some belligerent, cruel manner to cause undue harm to the animals. They are done for specific reasons. The bill could possibly make those practices criminal offences.

Under sections of the bill, hunters and trappers, honest men and women, honest citizens of Canada, who have never been arrested, who have never received even a traffic ticket in their lives and who have never gone through a stop sign, could be treated as criminals. It is incredible.

It is the view of the PC/DRC coalition that legislation is needed to punish those who intentionally abuse and neglect animals. We are not questioning that for a moment. However this legislation is not it.

Cruelty to animals is an issue that has received a lot of publicity in recent years, and deservedly so. We are looking at a poor attempt by the government to deal with that specific issue but Bill C-15B is not it.

If the government had been even remotely serious about doing something about cruelty to animals, it would not have put it together in an omnibus bill. It would have put together one bill, a stand on its own, cruelty against animals bill. Instead it has lumped it together with some firearms registration that was not well thought out either.

There is absolutely no way that any thinking member of parliament, or any sentient being, which I think is the wording for cruelty to animals, who feels pain can look at the legislation and not find something wrong with it. It is absolutely incredible.

We do want to support parts of the legislation, especially preventing cruelty against animals, but other parts of the legislation prevent us from supporting the good parts.

It is time for the government to get it right. It should put this to committee, find an answer to this serious question and do something about it.

I find it offensive that the propriety aspects of animal use in this legislation, and those aspects of this legislation have always been important to animal cruelty legislation and laws, the way that it is put into this legislation moves the animal cruelty provisions out of part IX of the criminal code and removes the protection that animal users had in section 429(2). This important section currently permits acts done with legal justification or excuse or with colour of right.

Therefore removing cruelty to animals provisions from this section is of particular concern to me as a hunter, a trapper and a farmer. I am guilty under this legislation and can probably expect to go in prison. It is unbelievable. The legislation would make a group of individuals, unwittingly and unjustly, in contravention of the law under section 182.2(1)(a) and 182.2(1)(b) of the proposed legislation.

I had this discussion with some Liberal members earlier. They told me there was nothing to be afraid of and nothing to worry about in the legislation. My NDP colleagues also said that it would be left up to the courts to decide. I am not willing to do that. I can tell members that when people go to court they are there for one reason: One of the parties in that courtroom has lied. One of the parties has unjustifiably defended something or accused the other party of something and the judge has to resolve it.

That is not how we need to resolve this. We need to resolve this in a fair and equitable manner that considers all the facts.

We share the concerns of Canadians about the definition of animal as being “any animal that has the capacity to feel pain”. I am forgetting a lot of my biology but I think it can be shown that animals, right down to multicelled creatures, feel pain and are actually affected by electrical shock or by acid. Certainly they are not sentient beings but they do have the ability to feel pain.

I do not know when the fishing season opens in the rest of the country, but come April 1 in Nova Scotia, when the fishing season begins, a lot of boys and girls will be put at risk when they put a worm on their hooks.

Someone may think that is incredulous but that is the way the bill reads and we will leave it up to some judge somewhere to make that decision. We can be sure the decision will be headed to the supreme court and we can be sure of what will happen there.

The legislation would place fishermen, farmers, hunters, trappers and all those good Liberals who want to boil a lobster, at risk. Forget the people who actually make a living in the country by raising livestock: cattle, hogs, chickens. Chicken farmers have to use euthanasia daily. Rather than have a sick bird infect the entire the flock, they put the chicken down as humanely as possible. However, that would be a deliberate act of violence under this legislation.

The PC/DRC coalition supports strengthening the laws to protect animals from undue cruelty. We certainly do not support this legislation and we cannot support it.

In the fishery in eastern and western Canada and in the Arctic, fish are caught in nets and caught on hooks. It is not some deliberate way to torture an animal but under the legislation those people would suddenly become criminals. It is unbelievable how poorly crafted the legislation is.

There has been $800 million already spent on the gun registry. Where is it headed? I have no idea.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-15B is unofficially a declared war on agriculture in every province of Canada. It is a declared war on practices that have existed long before we became a nation. It is a declared war on a multimillion dollar industry across Canada.

The question that all agriculture groups across Canada are asking is simple. If it is not the minister's intention to change what is lawful today, why does she not simply raise the penalties for existing cruelty to animals? That is the question being asked. Why does that not happen?

Every agricultural group across Canada is threatened by this piece of legislation. In my area it will soon be calving time on farms and ranches. After calving time comes the annual round up. The bill would provide the minister with the right to declare that the practice of castration is harmful. The minister has a right to declare that these animals must be put under so there is no pain, which would cost ranchers and farmers millions of dollars. That right remains with the government. The act of branding undoubtedly will come under the jurisdiction of the act.

Let us look at more. I have heard people talking about chickens no longer being allowed to be housed in cages, that they must roam freely about and have so many square feet per bird. Let us think about what people will pay for eggs.

Let us look at the organization called PETA that tried to sell the idea that cow's milk was harmful to children because extracting the milk hurt cows. Why does the minister not declare what constitutes cruelty? Could we trust the government to determine the definition of cruelty? I think not.

I have another extremely important question. How does a group calling itself the Animal Alliance of Canada get a charitable donation number from the government? How does it do that? It will use its propaganda in the upcoming byelection in Calgary Southwest. The government must have responsibility for these actions.

Let me quote from some of the documents I have before me. One is a letter written by the director of the Animal Alliance of Canada which states:

Bill C-15B, which makes changes to the animal cruelty section of the Criminal Code, recognizes for the first time that animals are not just “property”, but rather beings in their own right who feel pain and are therefore deserving of legal protections.

The letter goes on to say:

I can't overstate the importance of this change. This elevation of animals in our moral and legal view is precedent setting and will have far, far reaching effects. We'll make sure of that.

This is a letter from the director of the Animal Alliance of Canada who then goes on to state in support of the bill that it will cost Canadians millions and may drive some people totally out of agriculture. She continues:

Getting our politicians to pass good animal protection laws is about reward and punishment--rewarding them for doing a good job and punishing them for doing a poor one.

The House has not heard anything yet. Members should listen carefully to the following:

The Liberals have done a good job on Bill C-15B--

They should tell the hundreds of thousands of farmers, ranchers and hunters from coast to coast that this same group, which had the charitable donation, wrote this letter to go out as a fundraiser.

The Liberals go on to say:

--our first chance to reward them will be in the upcoming by-election in Calgary Southwest, Preston Manning's old electoral district.

I hope ranchers and farmers from coast to coast will listen to this last bit.

With your help, Animal Alliance's political arm, Environment Voters, will run a campaign in the by-election to help the Liberal candidate get elected. It'll be a tough fight. This is the Canadian Alliance's heartland. Nevertheless, if the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives split the right wing vote, it's possible for the Liberal candidate to win.

That would be funny if it were not so pitiful. We finally got the government to bring forward this bill out of an omnibus bill but it is about to destroy industry in my constituency in my province and industries from coast to coast that are asking for support on this side of the House. I can assure the House that the rural caucus on that side of the House cannot with good conscience ever stand in this House and vote for this bill.

I cannot believe that would be possible. I cannot believe the members I know, who raise chickens, hogs, cattle and so on, would have the fortitude to stand up and vote for this bill.

My colleagues on this side of the House have always said that we should put in tougher penalties for cruelty. If the minister were to state it now, this bill would not even be necessary. Are we going to cave in to the lobbyists?

In conclusion, the most recent census shows very clearly that the number of people in rural Saskatchewan is declining. It is a mind process over there. Which is more important, the lobby groups and the number of x s they can make or the industry from coast to coast? That truly is the question.

I am asking the House and pleading with the members opposite, for goodness sake, for the welfare of Canada, block the bill and destroy it before it becomes law.