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

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am perhaps just following up on the comments of the hon. member who just spoke. I would point out that whenever we consider anything the government has done or is doing, we always do it with a certain degree suspicion because of its actions in the past.

I am not sure if I would completely agree with him that government members are acting in the most forthright manner in how they have handled the bill. It took a lot of effort by a great many individuals out in the real world, as well as all the opposition parties, to get them to split the bill into two bills. There has been considerable debate about that.

The one thing I would agree with him on is that at least we have had substantial debate on this bill and on this issue throughout its course through the Chamber. I only wish the Liberals would have applied that same high degree of debate and committee time to other legislation, notably Bill C-36, instead of invoking time allocation and ramming it through the House.

I will now focus my comments on report stage of Bill 15B, specifically the amendments that are before the House dealing with those sections and clauses that deal with the cruelty to animals. Like many who have spoke before me, I have heard from a great many of my constituents concerning this issue. I think all parliamentarians, regardless of party, have heard loud and clear from their constituents.

Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, this is an issue that to some degree pits urban versus rural people. Being from a riding that is roughly a quarter of the geographic size of British Columbia, a huge rural riding, the eighth largest riding in the country, obviously this bill and the way that the law, once enacted, could be interpreted by the courts is of great concern to the rural folks of Prince George--Peace River. They have made their concerns known to me.

Who are the stakeholders who have the greatest concerns with this legislation? Again, as other speakers from the coalition and other parties have stated, they are quite numerous. Medical researchers have been greatly concerned about the legislation because of the work they do in trying to advance the cause of disease prevention. Trappers certainly have reason to be concerned about it.

I want to specifically address hunters, guiding and outfitting and the economic benefit that this brings to my home province of British Columbia, specifically to my region of northeastern British Columbia, the Peace River--Prince George area. I also want to mention the potential for low income, local hunters as well. When we talk about big game hunting, we are not dealing specifically with guiding and outfitting. We are also dealing with the local hunters who are in many cases low income people who rely upon wild meat to provide a certain amount of sustenance to their families.

I remember my own youth. I am not sure exactly how much meat would have been in our diet, if we would not have had my father out hunting and getting the odd moose, or caribou or deer to put meat on the family table.

As well, people have raised concerns about the aboriginals. They have talked about their concerns with Bill C-15B and the provisions on cruelty to animals. The member from the Canadian Alliance who spoke before me is a past farmer like myself. He spoke quite eloquently about the potential impact on the agricultural sector industry and on people from his riding in Saskatchewan.

Let us use the case of farmers for example. If farmers had to spend time in the courts and incurred costs to defend themselves because of provisions of the law that would see them subjected to charges of cruelty to animals for their practices in the husbandry of animals and the way they raise their livestock, obviously at some point those costs would have to be passed on to the consumer. Although urban people may say that legislation such as Bill C-15B does not directly impact them, down the road it very well may.

Another stakeholder of concern is the rodeo industry. What will it mean for the Calgary Stampede, the Williams Lake rodeo and such organizations depending on the interpretation of the law down the road?

I am in support of the two amendments that I put forward on behalf of my colleague for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough who originally had the amendments in his name. I am disappointed that Motion No. 3 was ruled out of order because a similar motion had been made at committee stage. Therefore it was dropped and we will not get to vote on it at report stage. That motion would have removed the definition of “animal”. It is of great concern. My colleague from the Canadian Alliance spoke about that a few minutes ago.

Motion No. 9, which is also in my name, deals with the deletion of a clause that would move cruelty to animals from part XI to part VI which would take it away from the classification it has always had. For some 50 years we have had animals protected under the property section of the criminal code. Motion No. 9 would see that maintained for the future, rather than see it moved.

If the intent of the legislation is to increase the penalties to those who abuse animals, then obviously we would all find ourselves in agreement with the intent of the legislation. No one, except the cruellest of the cruel, would want to see insufficient laws or penalties in our country to deter abuse of animals. With the possible exception of child abuse, I cannot think of anything more horrendous than abusing a defenceless animal. If that was the case and the legislation was specifically targeted to that and it was very clearly defined, we would not have the problems that we see with the legislation. Unfortunately it is not clearly defined.

Interestingly enough, when I was having my morning coffee at home and was reading through the paper, I noticed a story in the Ottawa Citizen about a case of animal abuse and cruelty. A Belleville man who apparently had been out hunting after dark had mistakenly shot a pony instead of a deer. The article says he was drunk and stoned at the time. He received what I would classify as quite a harsh sentence. According to the story the man received five months for killing the pony and for animal cruelty and two months for an unrelated assault charge. In addition he received a fine.

The point I am making is that the laws we already have obviously can deal very harshly with those that are involved in the abuse of animals. That is good and is something we all support.

I would suggest that Bill C-15B is causing great concern for a number of industries. I wish I had more time to get into the potential impact it might have on industries such as guiding and outfitting, big game hunting and some of the other industries that are especially important not only to Prince George--Peace River but to all of British Columbia. Maybe at third reading I will have a chance to make those additional points.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments this afternoon on this debate. It was suggested a little earlier this afternoon, by I believe it was the member for Provencher, that we were watering down the amendment proposed by the member for Oshawa. I would suggest that is simply not the case. What we are in fact doing is simply clarifying it and making it such that it will stand the scrutiny of time and of the courts.

With respect to Motion No. 6, the new offence created by the motion introduced by our colleague the member for Oshawa, as presently worded, would extend application of the offence provisions to law enforcement animals whether or not they are actively engaged in law enforcement at the time the offence is committed.

This runs directly counter to the policy of the animal cruelty provisions as a whole. It retains the notion that particular animals should be treated differently from other animals. It is also unclear from the amendment whether these provisions would override the general cruelty to animal provisions elsewhere in Part V.I when offences are committed in respect of law enforcement animals. In some cases, there may be an overlap between elements of an offence under the amendments versus an offence listed in either subsection 182.2 or subsection 182.3 of Bill C-15B.

The offence provision, as redrafted, makes it clear that the law enforcement animals are being protected because of the risk that they face on a daily basis in the course of assisting peace officers and public officers. The offence applies when they are aiding or assisting a peace officer or a public officer engaged in the execution of their duties or a person aiding the officer. The offence in the amendment would criminalize the actions of anyone who wilfully or recklessly poisons, injures or kills a law enforcement animal while it is aiding or assisting a police officer or public officer in his or her work.

For accuracy, clarity and certainty in the law two references had to be changed: peace officer or public officer is well-known in criminal law and was substituted for the term law enforcement personnel. The notion of assault could not be retained because the assault provisions of the criminal code relate only to human beings.

The amendment does not include an offence of poisoning a law enforcement animal while it is kenneled, penned, transported or otherwise held because these are activities that are already covered in the general cruelty to animal provisions. Animals in these circumstances are not actively engaged in assisting a police officer or public officer and therefore a provision creating a specific offence for law enforcement animals in these situations would tend to undermine the policy of the cruelty provisions as a whole, that specific animals should not be given preferential treatment over other animals per se.

The amendment would also modify the restitution provision to make it comply with the requirements of criminal law. The courts have said that a restitution order in a criminal context must be logically related to the objectives of sentencing. The courts have held that a restitution is part of the overall punishment and must consider the total impact of the punishment, as well as the impact of the restitution order on the rehabilitation of the offender.

The Supreme Court of Canada has said that restitution orders should not be made where there is any serious contest on legal or factual issues about damages. That is why there is a requirement in the general restitution provisions in section 738 of the criminal code that the damages must be readily ascertainable.

Symmetry, clarity and certainty in the law is achieved if the restitution order in the context of law enforcement animals is similar to the restitution provisions in Part XXIII of the criminal code regarding sentencing.

Just before I leave this part, again I would like to compliment the member for Oshawa for bringing forth his amendment and bringing it to our attention and to the attention of the committee. It certainly has been an area of concern for him and for many of our police officers who have these animals that assist in law enforcement.

I would also like to make one further comment. I believe it was again the member for Provencher who suggested that the so-called screening amendment was being advanced in a sort of underhanded or less than straightforward way. I would simply point out the fact that this amendment was advanced in Bill C-15A, was considered by the justice committee and this House, was voted on I believe by the government as well as by the official opposition and passed.

It has gone through. We looked at it for roughly six months. It has been considered by the committee. We heard witnesses on it, and it certainly cannot be said that we are doing anything in a perhaps less than straightforward manner. It has been dealt with under Bill-15A and that party voted for Bill-15A.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-15. I come from an agricultural area. I am proud of that. I make as much mention of it as I possibly can.

Many of my friends are both ranchers and farmers. They live on the land. Animals are a big part of their lives. These are people who spend their time, especially in the spring, going out at night to check their animals and spend time with them. They spend their days gearing their lives to their animals. They go out in the middle of winter in the thickest of blizzards to find their animals when they need to. They love their way of life and what it is all about. It can also be said that they love their animals.

My wife has an uncle who has cattle. I had cattle for a few years myself. One time I was telling him about the curse of owning the beasts. He commented that “Cows know what they need to know in order to be cows”. I have found that to be true. That is about all they know but it is enough for them.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you have had the opportunity to calve out cows. I see you are nodding in the affirmative. We all know what an experience it can be. We go out in the middle of the night and find a cow that is trying to calve and having problems. We try to convince her to find her way into the barn when she wants to go in the other direction or anywhere but where we would like her to. We get her in the barn. She is fighting against calving but we manage to get the chains on and pull out the calf. We all know the feeling of satisfaction that comes from that. I have friends who have done it many times over the years and who do it very well.

I farmed for 25 years before I had the privilege of coming here. I only know of one case of what I would call animal abuse. In our part of the world which is southwestern Saskatchewan when there is abuse of animals the rural municipality is normally responsible for coming in. In the case I am thinking of an older person was no longer able to look after her animals. She had quit feeding them properly. My father-in-law happened to be the reeve at the time and was responsible. The rural municipality went in, seized the animals, got them the food and water they needed and was then responsible for selling the animals.

In 25 years of farming and 40 plus years of living in a rural community this is the only example I can only talk about in our area where people had trouble looking after their animals or were neglecting them.

This is why I have such a concern about the legislation. The definition of an animal would be changed. I think it has been put forward by people who are out of touch and have little information or connection with animals or animal life. The new definition is extremely broad. It describes an animal as:

--a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

The new definition would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never before been provided this kind of protection.

I have not heard a lot of discussion about the definition but it strikes me that there is a bizarre aspect to it. The definition centres on the capacity to feel pain. I do not know if members have thought about it but I have never heard a definition that defined something by its capacity to feel pain.

This suggests that the people who came up with the definition have their own agenda. We heard that in committee where animal rights organizations made it clear they would take the legislation to the limit when they get the opportunity by challenging people about their animal care.

Moving the animal cruelty provisions from property offences to a new and separate section would elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the court. I assume that is the goal of the people defining them, but it is not a goal we need. Through the centuries and the millennia animals have been seen as property. We are now faced with a substantial change in their legal position.

The Lawyers Weekly has written that we have upgraded the standing of animals to creatures deserving of protection in their own right because of their capacity to suffer. This comes back to what I was saying. The definition is a strange one with a political agenda behind it.

The changes that the legislation will bring about would have a tremendous impact for many who are dependent upon agriculture and animals for their livelihoods, such as farmers and ranchers who are very responsible in dealing with their animals. Hunters obviously at some point will also be impacted by the legislation. Groups are already saying they will use this against hunters who hunt for the sake of sport and for conservation.

It is very interesting that we are moving into an area where we talk more and more about the environment, how important it is and how we need the government to interfere in it. I will talk a bit here about the agriculture department and its commitment to doing that as well.

We now have more animal life than we have ever had in my area. Over the last few years the farming communities have become much more responsible because of some of the changes in the hunting regulations. We are getting to the point where a lot of animals are becoming pests. I heard other MPs talking about deer coming into their backyards and eating the fruit off their apple trees and coyotes bothering their domestic animals and those kinds of things. The other day a Banff news report said it was having trouble. People were being told to make sure they did not act like prey because of the cougars, which are only too happy to look at people in that way.

Another group the legislation will affect is aboriginal people. I know they have a cultural connection to the wildlife and to their history which involved that. If the legislation is applied fairly across the country, it will also impact on them.

One of the most bizarre things about the entire legislation is the definition. We are in a situation now where animals will have more protection than human beings. In particular I am thinking of fetuses in their mothers' wombs. Research has consistently shown that fetuses react to pain and that they pull away from it. There are a number of videos that have been made showing the impact of them being torn from the womb and being destroyed. They react against the invasion of the womb by trying to get away. I would suggest that that probably is suffering as well.

We are walking into a situation where the government is willing to protect animal life at a level that it certainly is not extending for human beings. What are we coming to? We have some strange things happening in our country.

One amendment which has been put forward is the provision that a person must be acting willfully or recklessly in killing or harming animals. That is an improvement over the original bill, but it begins to leave the responsibility for determining these kinds of things to the courts. We have seen some of the present rulings by the courts, which do not leave a lot of us with great comfort. The judiciary is becoming more and more under the influence of many different radical pressures and organizations.

Another amendment, Motion No. 5, which was put forward by the member for Selkirk--Interlake, suggested applying generally accepted standards to animal treatment rather than the willfully or recklessly clause as suggested by the government. My colleague from the NDP said that he had some concerns about that. I do not think we have to say that if one small community does something then we call that generally accepted standards. However amending the clause as suggested in Motion No. 5 is a good option.

Farmers are being pushed from every side these days. They are trying to make a living. In many ways it seems like our agriculture department is more concerned about pushing environmental issues than it is about protecting agricultural producers. Farmers, as agricultural producers, do not ask for special treatment and they are not asking for special treatment with the bill either.

In conclusion, the Alliance members have had some positive suggestions. We have offered a number of solutions and presented a number of good amendments. I would like to suggest that we keep part XI in the code as it presently is. Just leave things alone. The law is working well. We need to enforce it. We are in favour of increasing the penalties if need be. Let us do that, but let us enforce it and apply it in those few situations where we have problems.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has supported the bill throughout, including some of the amendments that went through at committee stage. We supported it because we felt it was important.

We are at one of those times in our evolution as a society when we recognize that animals should be treated differently from other physical property. We should therefore create new provisions in our criminal law system for dealing with them. The underlying principle of Bill C-15B is one we strongly support.

We have heard a lot of criticism of the bill from the other opposition parties. However let us look at the section that would establish what an offence is. The terminology the bill uses and the behaviour and conduct it would prohibit make it hard to imagine there would be negative impacts anywhere near the extent suggested by some members of the House.

I grew up in a farming community. Just about all farmers I have ever had contact with were proud of the work they did and careful about the way they treated their animals. However that was not 100%. We have all heard stories and known of incidents where animals were not treated properly. The bill would go some distance in addressing how to deal with that type of conduct.

Some suggest Bill C-15B would inhibit the farming industry and hunters. That is not the case. It would prohibit behaviour that as a civilized society we are no longer prepared to tolerate. To suggest it would wipe out the hunting industry in Canada is fearmongering. To suggest it would seriously impede farming operations is not accurate.

With regard to the amendments that have been proposed, the first one would eliminate the whole intent of the bill. It would take out the willful and reckless conduct that leads to prohibited conduct. It is not a motion we can support given that it would remove the philosophical underpinnings of the bill.

Motion No. 5 would introduce the concept of generally accepted industry standards. When I saw this I asked whether it meant that if a puppy mill had industry standards we would work to those. If a course of conduct is not acceptable by general standards in other parts of the country but is acceptable in a local community, are we stuck with having to live with it? These are not the kinds of criteria we want in the bill.

A member of the Alliance Party talked about government Motion No. 6 that deals with how someone would be prosecuted should a police animal be injured or killed. We supported the amendment. We were not prepared to live with the wording that was there before. We supported the amendment because in such circumstances we need a concept of mens rea.

The bill did not have it before. This would introduce it. It is an appropriate amendment for dealing with situations where individuals are attacked by police animals or vice versa.

We had a provision before that would not have introduced any concept of mens rea or intent. It was more a negligence type of concept. In those circumstances it was not appropriate. We are quite happy the minister has seen fit to move the amendment.

We have heard significant criticism by the Alliance member from Manitoba about the screening process the minister proposes to introduce. I have difficulty with that criticism. As a former justice minister in that province the member should be aware that it is quite common to put a screening process in place whether it is done by a federal attorney general or a provincial justice minister.

We have done so when dealing with prosecutions for impaired driving, spousal and child abuse, and assault. We have done it for proper policy reasons: to use the system more efficiently, more appropriately and in most cases more extensively.

To deal with the fear people rightly have of the potential for frivolous prosecutions it is appropriate to put a screening mechanism into place. It will probably not be there forever. Assuming the bill gets passed into law, as we get decisions from the courts and it becomes clear what charges are appropriate the screening process will no longer be necessary.

The screening process is not a big deal. It is appropriate to deal with the fear, some of which is unfounded but which is out there in some communities, that extremists on the animal rights side of the equation would bring frivolous charges and people would be forced to hire lawyers and incur the costs of defending themselves.

We have a system across the country that allows charges to be screened out by a justice of the peace before they are laid. That methodology can be employed here successfully and appropriately.

In its totality the bill, like any other bill, is not perfect. It has been drafted by humans. Could it be done better? Perhaps it could, but I do not share some of the accusations against it. The former attorney general for Manitoba said the defences are no longer available. The defence of necessity is always available. I learned that in law school and have studied it through. It is still there.

If one is in a hunting or camping situation and is attacked by an animal, a bear in particular, one has the right to defend oneself. This includes killing the animal if that is the only way to preserve one's health and safety.

The provisions are still there. Members are suggesting we must write them into the section. They are not necessary. Nor are a number of the other amendments. The provisions are already in the bill. The amendments are not appropriate for what the bill is attempting to do.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address Bill C-15B. The title of the bill is an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

This bill was introduced at first reading on March 14, 2001, and at second reading on May 3 and 7, but it was not reviewed in committee before the summer recess of the 37th parliament.

The bill was split in two. It was the government's response to hundreds of letters and thousands of signatures from people asking for a more effective act regarding treatment, protection and penalties relating to animal cruelty.

Since most of the provisions of the criminal code on these issues dated back to the late 19th century, a growing number of associations and groups called for the legislation to be modernized, for the scope of the various offences to be considerably broadened, and for harsher penalties to be imposed for animal cruelty offences.

Because there is considerable support for a reform of the part of the criminal code dealing with animal cruelty, Bill C-15B gives rise to strong reactions and conflicting interests.

Initially, the Bloc Quebecois supported several elements of the bill, including the creation of a new part in the criminal code, which would see the transfer of provisions dealing with animals from part XI of the code, entitled “Wilful and Forbidden Acts in Respect of Certain Property”, to a new part 5.1, entitled “CrueIty to Animals”. However, the Bloc Quebecois can no longer support the bill, because it does not protect, among others, the legitimate activities of breeders, farmers, researchers, hunters and so on.

The purpose of this bill is to have more adequate means to deal with offenders who commit cruel and reprehensible acts against animals. The purpose of this reform is to protect animals.

However, while the Minister of Justice claims that the bill does not deprive the animal industry from its revenues, it would have been important to specify this in the legislation, so as to reassure the animal, farming, medical and sports industry regarding any risk of frivolous action.

This was not done. The minister simply amended the bill by adding the defences in paragraph 8(3) of the criminal code. The minister and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights rejected the Bloc Quebecois' amendments, which would have explicitly added as a defence acting with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

The Bloc Quebecois was in favour of the bill in principle if it could have been amended to reflect the means of defence earlier allowed in part XI of the criminal code. That is why the Bloc Quebecois asked that the means of defence in article 429 of the criminal code be added explicitly to new part 5.1 of the criminal code.

According to my colleague, who defended this position in committee, these amendments were not accepted by the government members. In all committees, all we hear from these members is no, no, no.

The Bloc Quebecois is also opposed to the bill because it seeks to take away a number of powers and responsibilities which now fall under the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec and give them to the chief firearms officer.

Since the gun registration scheme was first introduced, the Government of Quebec has set up agencies responsible for issuing permits—the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec. Briefly, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to the bill because it does not explicitly protect the legitimate activities of the animal industry, hunters and those doing research, and it takes away the Government of Quebec's authority to enforce the Firearms Act.

Bill C-15B contains the present provisions of the criminal code concerning cruelty to animals and adds a number of new provisions. Since animals are now considered goods and not human beings, the offences and recourses possible are essentially minor.

Enforcement of the legislation as it now stands results only in damages for loss of goods. In addition, because sentences are lenient, they encourage repeat offences. Animal rights groups have repeatedly called for better protection with respect to cruelty to animals. Respect for human beings begins with respect for animals.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of increased protection for animals, but only provided there is protection for legitimate activities involving animals, animal husbandry, sport hunting and fishing, and research. Such is not the case, even after the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, for all of them were rejected. The purpose of those amendments was to improve this aspect of the bill.

The initial premise has to be that all those involved directly or indirectly in the livestock industry judge this bill unacceptable in its present form. For the great majority of them, these new provisions are likely to increase the possibility of criminal charges against those who work in the industry or who engage in recreational activities such as hunting and fishing.

The demands by the chicken protection coalition clearly illustrate the concerns raised by Bill C-15B. The board of the Quebec federation of poultry producers called unanimously upon the federal government to amend Bill C-15B so that livestock producers would retain the legal protection they enjoy at the present time and be able to continue to exercise their legitimate profession without any risk of complaints or charges. All of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois relating to this were turned down by the committee.

I would also like to mention that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is asking that the current wording of the provisions of Bill C-15B regarding cruelty to animals not be kept as is, but that it be amended to provide the agri-food sector with the legal protection that its members currently enjoy under the criminal code. It is a protection they deserve.

In conclusion, producers are asking for the protection of their livelihood and for the assurance that they will not be prosecuted for activities related to their work. The definition of animal could be a source of problems.

I would like to conclude by saying that the amendments moved by the Bloc Quebecois would have clarified certain provisions of the bill and would have made a clear distinction between hunters and people who voluntarily hurt animals just for the sake of seeing them suffer.

Unfortunately, the federal government has shown again its unwillingness to listen and its conviction that it knows it all. Had it been open to our excellent amendments, we could have supported this bill. However, such was not the case, and we will vote against the bill, because it needed to be improved.

It is obvious, with Bill C-27, Bill C-36, the one regarding marine conservation areas and all the bills that come before the House, that the government does not want to listen. It sees the opposition as totally useless.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to take part in the report stage of Bill C-15B.

I come from a rural riding. From my rural perspective, the bill is a threat to the livelihood of the people who live in my riding. It is certainly a dangerous and unnecessary move to take this out of the property section of the criminal code.

This afternoon we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice say that the government's poll indicated somehow that Canadians support this. Unfortunately this is one of those bills that divide rural and urban Canadians.

We all know that the majority of Canadians, 75%, perhaps 85%, live in urban settings. Urban residents' optics and perspectives on animals are very different. There is a difference in optics in how they see their pets compared to the perspective of those who make a living raising animals.

I must say first that I had the opportunity to sit in on the justice meeting and listen to the witnesses on the bill, witnesses who came from the medical research community, the animal rights community and the trapping association. I must say that this bill is not about cruelty to animals legislation. This is a bill that moves toward the humanization of animals in the country.

The medical researchers in our universities are very concerned. They are concerned about the ways in which they use animals to do medical research for our benefit, for your benefit, Mr. Speaker, and for our children's benefit.

As well, the trapping association is concerned even though they have humane traps. With new technology, trappers have changed their methodology. This whole issue of trapping affects the aboriginal community in my riding. I have 15 aboriginal bands in my riding. They have a right to trap and hunt. Many still make their livelihoods through trapping. They say the bill puts them at risk. In fact we need to remind the House that this country was built on the trapping and trading of the beaver pelt. If that had not taken place this country would probably never have been developed.

I must remind the government members in the House that the agricultural industry in Ontario is second in terms of dollars to the auto industry. Those members must be told that again and again. If they do not believe that the bill and these amendments are a threat to the agricultural industry, certainly for those who raise chickens, hogs and other animals we consume, they are basically ignoring what is happening.

I come from a rural riding where farming, the raising of cattle, swine, chicken, elk and horses, as well as trapping are the economic backbone of Dauphin--Swan River. I hope this will be addressed by government members.

Tens of thousands of chickens and cows are slaughtered every day for human consumption. We have heard Liberal members talk about the debate over suffering and pain. That is an ongoing debate. The problem is, once we take this out of the property section of the criminal code and start perceiving animals from the perspective of humanity, then we are really on the slippery slope to something we may regret down the road.

I will relate to the House my own experience. Over 20 years ago I raised weanling pigs. One has to castrate pigs while they are still small weanlings. If urbanites watched me castrating these little weanling pigs in a barn, what would they think about cruelty to animals? Their optics would certainly be different from my optics.

In fact, tourism in my riding is a huge part of the economy. The bill would attack tourism in regard to the of hunting of wild game. Again, this relates to hunting by aboriginal people. I have not heard anyone speak on behalf of the aboriginal community today. Their traditional hunting patterns are put at risk by the bill.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

Today we are debating the motions in amendment that have been tabled. We have heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice refute, reject and announce clearly that the Liberal majority will oppose the motions tabled, which we are currently debating, with the exception of Motion No. 6, tabled by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

Obviously, it is fair to think, and I say this to my learned colleague, whose Motion No. 4 was rejected, that the Minister of Justice alone is right in this parliament and that all those tabling amendments, with the exception of the Minister of Justice, have them rejected.

It is especially important since Motion No. 7, which I tabled, was further to Motion No. 6 of the Minister of Justice, who wanted particular attention paid to law enforcement animals.

Given their nature and the cost of training them and so on, the bill provides for substantial fines for those who, out of cruelty, destroy these animals.

My Motion No. 7 reads as follows:

(1) In this section, “service animal” means a dog or any other animal used by a person with a disability.

The parliamentary secretary says very candidly that we must protect animals, as suggested in the motion of the Minister of Justice. The minister's motion protects law enforcement animals. However, the Bloc Quebecois motion to protect a service animal is not accepted by parliament, because there is no clear definition of a person with a disability.

We heard a lot of things in the past year, but this takes the cake. I cannot believe that we would have to justify the term “disability”, or the expression “a person with a disability”. People with a disability should not have to come to the House or wherever to explain the nature of their disability.

Again, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is lacking sensitivity when he says that this motion about a “service animal” cannot be accepted, because the definition of a person with a disability is too vague. This is an insult to all Quebecers and Canadians who have a disability.

We are not yet at the division stage, but as far as the Minister of Justice's proposal goes, relating to protection for a law enforcement animal, I trust that hon. members will understand that the same protection is being requested for a service animal, meaning a dog or any other animal used by a person with a disability.

I trust that the same protection and same penalties will be set for those who might harm these animals, which are so very useful to those badly in need of them in our democratic and free society.

Once again, we have a fine example of the mentality of the Liberal government, which announced “Zero. We are keeping none of these”. They are the only possessors of the truth.

What is more, it is not just anybody who holds the power. The Liberal member who has just seen his Motion No. 4 defeated has seen very clearly that the only person entitled to settle all differences of opinion in this House is the Minister of Justice. She is probably the only one capable of understanding how parliament works and the only one deemed capable of settling differences and ensuring, in the end, that there is protection for animals and all those who call upon the House for protection.

Once again, I repeat to Quebecers and Canadians that there are some things that are acceptable and tolerable. But there are others that are less so, and we have a striking example of that before us.

The only motion that gets passed is the motion by the Minister of Justice on the protection of law enforcement animals. Among the others rejected was mine, for the protection of “service animals, that is a dog or other animal used by a person with a disability.

As for this, I simply cannot understand why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice came to explain to us that the problem with the motion was basically the fact that the expression person with a disability was not clear. They are worried that people without a disability will ask for protection under this clause of the bill.

There are some things I am prepared to hear in the House, but there are others that really have me stymied, and the Liberal members never cease to surprise me.

We have been told that the motions we moved will be rejected. Therefore members ought not to be surprised that the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill if it is not amended.

People need to understand. The Bloc Quebecois agreed to the legislation being amended, that there be a bill to amend the criminal code, in order to increase intolerance of persons who are cruel toward animals, or those who misuse firearms.

We had wanted to support the bill. The bill, as introduced, has some problems—I mentioned one—regarding service animals. But there are problems as regards ranchers, farmers, hunters and researchers.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary spoke to us about amendments to section 8.3 of the criminal code moved in committee. This is an amendment by my colleague, the member for Châteauguay, an expert on the criminal code.

His amendment stated quite simply that ranchers, farmers, hunters and fishers should have the right to a defence of justification or an authorized excuse and colour of right.

Bill C-15B, as introduced, removes the right of defence from ranchers, farmers, hunters and researchers.

Today, the parliamentary secretary even said that although it was not explicitly laid out in the legislation, there would still be the same effect, that we must not worry and that even if the amendment were rejected, the result would be the same in the end.

In law, clarity is vital. I find fault with the Liberal majority, the Liberal members who sit on committee, who failed to understand that we really wanted to protect producers, farmers, hunters and fishers, many of whom earn their living in the animal production field so they would feel comfortable practicing their profession, their sport. The aim is to ensure reasonable and fair defence. We are talking legal justification, excuse or colour of right.

This is the reason for Amendment No. 8, which provides for access to experts for these people, in the event they are charged under this bill, to explain to them how to carry on their sport or their work without being charged with cruelty to animals.

We must always be able to express our opinions in the House or in committee with arguments that are neither unreasonable nor frivolous, as the Chair has said. They do not want frivolous amendments, and none was moved with respect to Bill C-15B. That is the fact of the matter.

The government is trying to get us to believe this bill says something it does not.

The Bloc Quebecois will oppose the bill simply because there is no guarantee to producers, farmers, researchers and hunters of legal justification, excuse or colour of right.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-15B be amended by deleting Clause 9.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the amendments we are putting forward are an effort to make the bill better and reflect what is needed in Canada by way of protection for animals but also for the protection of the livestock industry in this country, the way of life of hunters, trappers, fishermen, and all those who use animals in the normal course of earning their livelihood or in their cultural way of life. Across the country this includes hunting and other pursuits that happen to involve animals.

Motion No. 1 is a reflection of the fact that we in the Canadian Alliance would like to have full protection for the livestock industry up front. By up front I mean that in the bill itself it is clearly and explicitly stated that farmers and ranchers can carry out their normal activities without fear of malicious prosecution.

Mr. Owen has advanced the idea, and it is in Bill C-15A a related bill, that there would be a preliminary hearing type of situation where a complaint or criminal charge is laid by a private individual. There would be a court process by which the informant, the private individual, could go before the judge. The attorney general of the province would be there. This process would determine whether or not it was a vexatious, malicious type of prosecution. It specifically says that the person accused does not necessarily have to be there.

It seems that the person who is the subject of the information complaint, the person charged, would be absent. In any court proceeding that I am aware of, it is vital that the accused be able to protect himself from a legal point of view at all stages of the complaint. In an information and complaint that is malicious and vexatious in nature, by an animal rights group for instance, what will happen is that group will be at an in camera hearing and the charge will be thrown out because it is malicious and vexatious. However, it will never come to the public view that the animal welfare groups are trying to use the law to cause problems for the livestock industry.

My amendment would delete clause 8. It seems to me if we cannot have full protection for our livestock industry and users of animals, we would be better off staying with the present legislation which is in effect until it is repealed and this legislation is put in its place. The purpose of the motion is to delete the cruelty to animals amendments and leave the law as it is until the government can come up with better cruelty to animals amendments.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-15B, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 6 the following:

“182.7(1) In this section, “service animal” means a dog or any other animal used by a person with a disability.

(2) Every one commits an offence who

(a) assaults, injures or causes the death of a service animal; or

(b) assaults, injures, causes the death of or poisons, or in any way attempts to poison, a service animal while it is kenneled, penned, transported or otherwise held.

(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (2)(a) or (b) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or emprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months or both.

(4) The court, in addition to any sentence that it may impose under subsection (3), must order the offender to pay all restitution costs, including training costs, resulting from the service animal's being killed or otherwise rendered unable to perform its duties.”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-15B, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 6 the following:

“182.8 The court may order the production of any additional evidence or the issuance of a summons to any persons, including experts, whose testimony the court considers appropriate or necessary to confirm evidence relating to any section in this Part.”

[Bob Nault, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-15B, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 32 to 43 on page 5 and lines 1 to 16 on page 6 with the following:

“182.6 (1) In this section, “law enforcement animal” means a dog, a horse or any other animal used by a peace officer or public officer in the execution of their duties.

(2) Every one commits an offence who wilfully or recklessly poisons, injures or kills a law enforcement animal while it is aiding or assisting a peace officer or public officer engaged in the execution of their duties or a person acting in aid of such an officer.

(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (2) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months, or to both.

(4) The court may, in addition to any other sentence that it may impose under subsection (3), order the accused to pay all reasonable costs associated with the loss of or injury to the law enforcement animal as a result of the commission of the offence if the costs are readily ascertainable.”

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 5

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,”

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 4

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.”

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-15B be amended by deleting Clause 8.

[The Speaker]

There are nine motions in amendment on the notice paper at report stage of Bill C-15B.

Motions Nos. 2 and 3 will not be selected by the Chair as they are identical to motions proposed and defeated in committee. All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions and amendments at report stage.

Motions Nos. 1 and 4 to 9 will be grouped for debate. The voting pattern is available at the table.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 and 4 to 9 to the House.