Bill S-203 (Historical)

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

Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law)

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Toronto—Danforth with great interest as he asked by other colleague the question.

Again, the reason animal rights legislation over the last decade has been so strongly resisted by millions of Canadians from the animal use community, from the medical research world, the hunters, the anglers, the trappers, and I represent a natural resource constituency, is the extreme damage that the animal rights agenda has done to communities. Lives, families and communities have been destroyed because of that kind of advocacy. One only needs to look at the Inuit sealing community.

It is extremely difficult to deal with legislation like this. The legislation that I looked at in a previous life, specifically Bill C-15B, opened the door to prosecution of legitimate animal use. I would also note, as I said in my earlier remark, we already have Bill S-203, which greatly increases the penalties for cruelty to animals. Why does my colleague opposite support the animal rights agenda?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was a government bill at the time. I fought that bill all the way along with the entire animal-use community in this country. Thankfully, in 2006, there was a change of government and Bill C-15B died on the order paper.

What Bill C-15B would have done was open up traditional animal uses to legislative interference by third-party groups, and that is why Bill S-203 was resoundingly passed in the House, primarily by Conservatives, and has the characteristic of criminalizing and penalizing egregious animal cruelty, something we all support. Egregious, deliberate animal cruelty must be condemned and criminalized, but at the same time, Canada's traditional, historic animal-use practices must be defended and, equally important, our medical research community, which depends so much on animal-based research, must be protected from harm so it can continue to do its important work for all of us.

That is why the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, of which I am chair, is making sure that the entire sustainable animal-use community in this country will know exactly where all the parties stand in terms of the use of animals.

I would like to express my complete support for Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, which I believe would contribute in a meaningful way to achieving our government's goal of making Canadian communities safer. This proposed reform supports the October 16, 2013, Speech from the Throne commitment to bring forward Quanto's law, to recognize that animals used in law enforcement are put at risk while assisting police in enforcing the law and protecting society. I was extremely pleased that the scope of the proposed legislation was expanded to also apply to other service animals, which also play an important role in making it possible for persons with disabilities to lead independent lives.

I am also very pleased to note that the bill proposes to enhance the punishment of persons who commit an assault on a police officer or certain other law enforcement officers. It would do so by requiring that a sentence imposed for any type of assault on a law enforcement officer, whether a common assault, an assault causing bodily harm, an assault with a weapon, or an aggravated assault, would be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender arising out of the same event.

I would now like to walk through Bill C-35 and compare it with the existing general offence of cruelty animals in section 445 of the Criminal Code. The proposed section 445.01 would create a new hybrid Criminal Code offence that is distinct from the general offence of cruelty to animals in section 445 of the Criminal Code. The classifications of animals that this would apply to are:

...a law enforcement animal while it is aiding a law enforcement officer in carrying out that officer’s duties, a military animal while it is aiding a member of the Canadian Forces in carrying out that member’s duties or a service animal.

This legislation clearly defines the prohibited conduct captured by the new offence. It would be an offence under the proposed legislation to kill, maim, wound, poison, or injure one of those animals. The legislation clearly defines the necessary mental element that must exist at the time of the commission of the offence. An offender convicted of the proposed offence would be subject to a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment when the offence is prosecuted on indictment and 18 months imprisonment and/or a $10,000 fine when the offence is prosecuted on summary conviction. These are the same maximum penalties as in section 445 of the Criminal Code.

I ask all members to reflect on the importance of law enforcement animals and our ability as legislators to improve the protection afforded these working animals that contribute so much to making our communities safer for all of us.

Animal Cruelty

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked by reports of the sled dog massacre in British Columbia. I know that my colleagues across the floor will join me in condemning this senseless act.

Our government supports the fight against animal cruelty and the need to send a strong and clear message that it is totally unacceptable in our society. That is why our government helped pass Bill S-203 into law during the last Parliament, a bill that increased the maximum penalty to five years for these terrible acts.

The bill also granted judges the discretion to order, as part of a sentence, that a convicted offender be prohibited from owning or residing with an animal for any length of time considered appropriate, up from the previous maximum of two years.

Our government believes that Bill S-203 delivered an added measure of protection for all animals but remains open to future initiatives to combat animal cruelty.

Animal Welfare

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour of presenting two petitions signed by many Canadians who are calling upon the House to pass animal welfare legislation to effectively improve the condition of animals and promote animal welfare in Canada.

These petitions suggest that Bill S-203, which provided for stiffer sentences for criminal offences relating to animal cruelty, was without effect. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the government, through the House of Commons, to bring in serious sentences for offences relating to animal welfare.

Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion M-354 to support the development and adoption of a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare at the United Nations.

We are in favour of a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare at the United Nations, provided an in-depth study is done. The Bloc Québécois is aware that animals are living beings and that it is important to respect them and treat them with dignity. That is why we are supporting a universal declaration on animal welfare in principle.

The purpose of this declaration is to develop a series of principles acceptable to all those who recognize that animal welfare is a major issue with respect to the social development of nations worldwide.

The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights was formally proclaimed in Paris on October 15, 1978, at UNESCO headquarters. This universal declaration is a philosophical position on the relationship that should henceforth exist between humans and animals. The text was revised by the International League of Animal Rights in 1989 and published in 1990.

The Bloc supports the international efforts made. It also believes that cruelty towards animals is unacceptable and that the federal government must take action to ensure that it is roundly condemned. In recent parliaments, our party has carefully examined the issue of bolstering the law in order to explicitly condemn animal abuse and to put to an end to cruel breeding operations.

Although some amendments were recently made to the Criminal Code, the Bloc Québécois believes we must do more and it is in favour of a real reform of the animal cruelty provisions.

The current maximum sentences under the Criminal Code are too lenient for the seriousness of the acts committed.

The Bloc also favours making the ban on owning animals indefinite in order to prevent certain foreseeable animal abuse from taking place. A breeder who has been found guilty of mistreatment should not have the right to re-open a kennel the day after being sentenced. We call those operations puppy mills.

Above all the Bloc Québécois feels that the definition of the term animal should be included in the Criminal Code. At present, the section on cruelty to animals is found under property offences. That does not seem to reflect today's reality.

That is why, during committee study of Bill S-203, the Bloc Québécois proposed the idea of introducing a definition of what an animal is, sought to protect stray as well as domestic animals, wanted to clarify the criterion for negligence, thereby making it easier to prove, and proposed an amendment to formally ban training cocks to fight.

Unfortunately, the Bloc's proposed amendments were rejected and the committee agreed on February 14, 2008, to report the bill without amendments.

That did not stop the Bloc Québécois from supporting Bill S-203 in that it was a small but real step in the right direction and it did not prevent the possible study and adoption of a more comprehensive bill in line with Bill C-50. The NDP tried to kill the bill.

But Bill S-203 would have helped protect animals from certain forms of cruelty—one of the concerns of the Bloc Québécois—and would have increased the maximum penalties set out in the Criminal Code to reflect the seriousness of the crime, sent a message to people who mistreat animals, and sent a message to judges who would have had to take this into account in their sentences. In fact, the seriousness of a crime is partly determined by the maximum penalty a criminal may be subject to.

Bill S-203 also enabled judges to prohibit an individual found guilty from owning or residing with animals for a period of five years, and to order the offender to reimburse the costs incurred by their actions. Lastly, Bill S-203 did not threaten legitimate activities involving the death of an animal, such as agriculture, hunting and fishing.

The NDP and the Liberals had some twisted logic. Instead of voting in favour of improving the bill—it is true that there is more to be done—they preferred to stick to the status quo that they so fiercely protest. They passed up a perfect opportunity to participate in the advancement of animal rights.

If the NDP and the Liberals truly had animal protection at heart, they would have acted differently. They would have followed the Bloc Québécois' example and acted responsibly. Although the Bloc Québécois is aware of the limitations of Bill S-203, it finds that this bill is a small but real step in the right direction, and does not hinder the possible study and adoption of another, more comprehensive bill.

The Bloc Québécois is making no secret of this. It is in favour of a real reform of the animal cruelty provisions and will seriously study any proposals brought forward on this matter again.

The Bloc was particularly in favour of the principle of Bill C-50, which would have created a new section in the Criminal Code to address cruelty to animals, removing this topic from the sections of the code that deal with property.

In closing, of course we support the principle of Motion M-354. We think it is important to adopt a universal declaration of animal welfare, but we also think we must go further. As legislators, we must go ahead with a real reform of the Criminal Code in order to really address the fundamental problem of cruelty to animals.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to that one bill, Bill S-203, it originated in the other place. It was extremely misleading in that it lulled Canadians into thinking that we were accomplishing something. For the most part, all parties were disappointed that it lacked any kind of depth or teeth.

This is a resolution. This is a commitment that we are looking for, which it is hoped will be heard around the world. This is about something we believe in as a nation, protecting animals, protecting those that have no ability to protect themselves.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech on the motion before us, but I had some trouble understanding the link between her speech and her party's position on Bill S-203.

If I am not mistaken, the Liberals and the NDP opposed that bill. Obviously, Bill S-203 did not go as far as we would have liked, but it at least made it possible to end the status quo.

Why did the Liberals introduce this motion today? When it was time to make the necessary legislative changes, the Liberal Party remained seated.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 354

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should support the development and adoption of a Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare at the United Nations as well as at all relevant international organizations and forums.

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to rise today to present Motion No. 354.

Before I begin, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas who had a similar motion on the order paper. The member graciously agreed to withdraw his motion so I could proceed with the motion we are debating today.

I would also like to thank my caucus colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, for her continued support and counsel. She is extremely passionate about this issue and I am grateful for all of her support.

World Animal Week is set to begin next week, making the debate of this motion extremely timely for Canada to vote to support the development of a universal declaration on animal welfare, or UDAW.

What is the universal declaration on animal welfare? To put it simply, it is an agreement among people and nations to recognize that animals are sentient, suffer, have welfare needs and to ultimately end animal cruelty worldwide.

The UDAW refers to the welfare of sentient animals. Sentience is the capacity to have feelings and to experience suffering and pleasure. It implies a level of conscious awareness. Scientific research indicates that all vertebrates are animals. This is an active research area and knowledge of sentience among species continues to grow.

More than a billion people rely on animals for their livelihoods and even more for job and food security. For many others, animals are companions that enrich their lives. While it has been proven that animals can feel pain and do suffer, global recognition of the significance of animal welfare remains virtually non-existent.

The UDAW will be structured as a set of general principles that acknowledge and emphasize the importance of animal welfare. The purpose of these principles is to encourage all nations to put in place or enhance existing animal welfare laws and standards. The UDAW will not be binding legislation and does not, therefore, attribute legal rights to animals.

A draft text was developed at the Manila Conference on Animal Welfare in March 2003 and at the Costa Rica steering committee meeting in November 2005. This is the basis for work on the drafting of a universal declaration on animal welfare and is in part based on the following:

That animal welfare is an issue worth consideration by governments.

That the promotion of animal welfare requires collective action and all stakeholders and affected parties must be involved.

That work on animal welfare is a continuous process....

RECOGNIZING that animals are living, sentient beings and therefore deserve due consideration and respect;

RECOGNIZING that animal welfare includes animal health [and that veterinarians have an essential role in maintaining both the health and welfare of animals];

RECOGNIZING that humans [inhabit] this planet with other species and other forms of life and that all forms of life co-exist within an interdependent ecosystem;...

ACKNOWLEDGING that the humane use of animals can have major benefits for humans;

This draft text also outlines the principles of the declaration as being:

1. The welfare of animals shall be a common objective for all [states];

2. The standards of animal welfare attained by each [state] shall be promoted, recognized and observed by improved measures, nationally and internationally. [Whilst there are significant social, economic and cultural differences between societies, each should care for and treat animals in a humane and sustainable manner][in accordance with the principles of the Declaration];

3. All appropriate steps shall be taken by [states] to prevent cruelty to animals and to reduce their suffering; 4. Appropriate standards on the welfare of animals be further developed and elaborated such as, but not limited to, those governing the use and management of farm animals, companion animals, animals in scientific research, draught animals, wildlife animals and animals in recreation.

The next phase in securing international recognition of the welfare of animals is for this non-binding agreement to be endorsed at the United Nations. The achievement of this declaration would be a groundbreaking step toward improvements for animals around the world and would act as a catalyst for change for animals in the following areas:

In the area of environmental sustainability, responsible animal management provides a positive impact on land use, climate change, pollution, water supplies, habitat conservation and biodiversity.

In the area of human health, proper animal care reduces the risk of disease transmission to humans and food poisoning. The human-animal bond also has proven therapeutic effects.

In the area of disaster management, animals are critical elements of many people's livelihoods, food security and cultural awareness. It is essential that protection be considered in disaster reduction preparedness and response policies.

In the area of poverty and hunger reduction, caring for animals appropriately improves productivity and helps farmers to provide food for themselves, their families and their communities.

In the area of social development, people's attitudes and behaviour toward animals overlap with their attitudes and behaviour toward each other.

The UDAW is supported by a growing list of government and key ministries from countries around the world including all 27 members of the European Union, as well as New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, Fiji, Croatia, Cambodia, Bahrain, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Norway and Thailand.

There is also a great deal of support from the public. More than 50,000 Canadians have signed petitions in support of a UDAW. Many of these petitions have been presented in the House of Commons. The UDAW is actively supported by Canada's foremost animal protection organizations including the World Society for the Protection of Animals.

Some may ask why we need a declaration now. In recent years our understanding of animal sentience has progressed dramatically. As a result, animal welfare has developed into an issue that demands immediate attention. The scientific basis of sentience is directly linked to an ethical concern for animal welfare.

There is currently no acknowledgement by the international community of animal welfare being an issue of importance. Neither the scientific findings regarding sentience nor the links between animal welfare and human development have been recognized.

Positive change for animals will follow recognition of animal welfare. Improving animal welfare will have a positive impact on human welfare. Reducing the pain and suffering that humans can inflict on animals will guide our relationship with them. The UDAW represents a new national beginning for our relationship with animals.

The achievement of the declaration is an important step and will act as a catalyst for change in the following ways: by raising the status of animal welfare as an international issue; by encouraging all governments to establish or improve national animal welfare legislation and its implementation; by encouraging those industries which utilize animals to keep their welfare at the forefront of their policies and practices; and finally, by inspiring positive change in public attitudes and actions toward animals.

It is important to emphasize two points. First, the UDAW has yet to be finalized and is only in a draft form. The purpose of this motion is to urge the government to involve itself in the continued development of the text and to support it. Second, the UDAW is a non-binding resolution. Its purpose is to persuade other nations without animal protection legislation to put some in place.

The development of and support for a universal declaration on animal welfare does have an obvious relationship to the cruelty to animals legislation, but will not have a cause and effect relationship. As I mentioned before, the UDAW is a non-binding resolution. The passage of UDAW would not force any changes to our animal welfare laws that we do not as a nation choose to enact ourselves.

As for countries such as ours which have animal welfare legislation, it would provide an excellent opportunity to review current legislation to identify areas of improvement. We know that an update of our animal welfare laws is long overdue, although some work has already taken place.

A great deal of legislation has been introduced and debated in this House over the past number of years. Sadly, of all that legislation introduced, only Bill S-203 was successful in becoming law. While critics say that bill does not go far enough, which is something I concur with, I do think it is a small step in a positive direction.

It is my hope that this motion can be another step to influence not only Canada but the international community as well.

A universal declaration on animal welfare is not a conclusion; it is a beginning. It is a signal that, as a global community, we recognize the importance of animals in our lives and the positive impact they have on our way of life. It is a demonstration of our understanding that treating animals humanely is a benefit to our entire society. Supporting a UDAW is a simple, moral and principled action Canada could take with ease.

I strenuously urge all members to support Motion No. M-354.

Criminal Code

[Penny Priddy, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-558, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present this bill, which is an amendment to the Criminal Code regarding animal cruelty. This bill really intends to remedy the deficiencies seen in Bill S-203, which was recently before this House. The people who are working out there on behalf of animal rights and the humane treatment of animals have wanted this for some time. I am pleased to present it today.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Royal Assent

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

April 17, 2008

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Marshall Rothstein, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the schedule to this letter on the 17th day of April, 2008 at 3:01 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila-Marie Cook

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The schedule indicates the bills assented to are Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)--Chapter No. 12; Bill C-298, An Act to add perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and its salts to the Virtual Elimination List under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999--Chapter No. 13; Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act--Chapter No. 14; and Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, the Canada Student Loans Act and the Public Service Employment Act--Chapter No. 15.

Vote on Bill S-203

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the unanimous consent of the House to revisit a mistake for which I was responsible a few minutes ago.

On the fourth vote, I voted to support Bill S-203. In the confusion of all the noise, when the Speaker called for the nays, both chair occupants sitting here in the rump stood again, definitely in error, and my vote was included as having voted against. Thankfully my colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle was not counted as voting against, but I was. It will appear that I voted twice. My intention was to vote once and was to vote in favour of Bill S-203.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill S-203 under private members' business.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

The House resumed from April 4 consideration of Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Animal Cruelty Legislation

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my second set of petitions deal with animal cruelty. The petitioners call on Parliament to update a 115 year old law that protects animals from cruelty. Over 700 petitioners are calling for real changes, not Bill S-203, which is coming forward this week in Parliament.

Criminal Code

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard many words and the word I heard over and over was “meaningless” and a lot of it is coming from that end of the House.

There is a chance to do something. There is a chance to make a change. There has not been a change for many years. We can do that at this point. We can support Bill S-203 and make sure that something is actually done. We are going to try very hard to make sure that something is actually accomplished.

The member mentions many of the emails that he wants. Is he asking for emails from people who make their living from a lot of these efforts, trappers and hunters, the first nations people? He is talking about a group of people who want the same thing we want. We want to make the protection of animals a priority. Bill S-203 will do that. It will actually do something that has not been done in quite awhile.

The argument is that a future bill is coming in Bill C-373, but we have already heard that it will never see the light of day in the House. The time is not going to happen. We are not going to get to that discussion, so we will not be able to do that. We actually want to do something concrete and the time is now to deal with Bill S-203.

What do we want to do with this? We want to make sure that animal protection is a priority. We want to make sure the penalties are increased. We want everyone in Canada to know that we are actually doing something.

Starting out with this bill does not mean that we will not be doing something in the future. It does not mean that we cannot change and a new bill can come to the floor of the House.

As has been mentioned by every speaker, things can change and things will be changed in the future. We want to make sure that there is a lot of good sober second thought and a lot of effort put into this. We want to make sure that people's ways--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the role the member for Windsor—Tecumseh has played in parliamentary committee.

Bill S-203 is opposed by every humane society across the country. It is opposed by the International Fund for Animal Welfare. It is opposed by the World Society for the Protection of Animals. Whether Ontario humane societies, local human societies, the Prince George Humane Society or the Toronto Humane Society, all are opposed to it.

People who are listening to the debate today need to know that the legislation is being opposed for extremely credible reasons. It does nothing to address the egregious cases of cruelty and negligence that we see across the country. It is a smoke screen for politicians to vote for, pretending they are doing something to address this problem.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the people who are concerned about this issue and who are listening today.

The NDP is going to force the vote today. That means there will be no vote in the House of Commons today. The vote will take place next week. The wide viewers who are listening today have the weekend to email their members of Parliament, the Bloc, the Conservative and the Liberal members of Parliament, who support the bill. They can pick up the phone now and phone the offices of those MPs.

The vote will not take place until next week, so there is still time for those who are concerned about the complete absence of real protection. There is nothing to stop what is happening now with respect to the cases of cruelty against animals across the country. For people who want to see the bill gutted, so we can force the government to bring in real meaningful legislation, the time is now.

The NDP has provided a fully array of amendments so some real change would take place.

We have heard case after case of animal cruelty. We heard about the 27 horses in Alberta, the cat that was microwaved to death and the puppies that were thrown down the outhouse pit. All these egregious cases of cruelty in the past few weeks can only be resolved by meaningful parliamentary action. That action comes from Canadians picking up the phone or emailing their members of Parliament now.

I know a lot of people listening to the debate this afternoon care profoundly about making these changes. They can make a real difference by picking up the phone, by sending in those emails, by talking to their neighbours, friends and family members concerned about this issue and getting them to phone their local MP.

Conservative MPs are going to vote against the NDP amendments and try to force Bill S-203 through the House. Even though the Quebec Humane Society is opposed to the bill, Bloc members are going to try to force this through. Liberal members are going to try to force the legislation through. It takes Canadians speaking up to make a difference.

I will mention some Canadians who are speaking up in my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster.

I would like to pay tribute to Ms. Rose Nadon, the president of the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce. Last Sunday she organized a huge rally in Vancouver to oppose Bill S-203. She has taken an active role on this issue.

Barbara Yaffe, a nationally renowned columnist, has written about this issue and spoken out on it as well.

I will quote from three letters I have received from my constituents.

Ms. Simpson from Burnaby, British Columbia writes:

The biggest problem with the current legislation is that it is difficult to enforce. In fact less than 1% of animal cruelty complaints lead to successful convictions. Bill S-203 maintains these inadequacies and loop holes which means that animal abusers will continue to get away with their crimes. As if this weren't bad enough, Bill S-203 also continues to leave wild and stray animals virtually unprotected, makes it nearly impossible to punish crimes of neglect and continues to legalize breeding animals to fight each other.

Another constituent, Ms. Denofreo from Burnaby, British Columbia, writes:

It is suggested that Bill S-203 was introduced to improve protection for animals yet not a single animal protection group in this country supports it. I oppose this bill too—because it is not an effective improvement to the current animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code, which haven't been significantly revised since first enacted in 1892. We should be ashamed that our country lags behind the Philippines and other developing countries when it comes to protecting animals from reckless acts of cruelty. Bill S-203 would hardly improve our ranking.

Mr. Schonfeldt from New Westminster writes:

Bill S-203 does not fix the problems in the current legislation which allows so many animal abusers to slip through the cracks unpunished. Less than 1% of animal abuse complaints in Canada lead to a conviction. While Bill S-203 increases the penalties for crimes against animals, I do not believe this to be very useful if law enforcement officers are unable to prosecute animal abusers in the vast majority of cases.

Canadians from coast to coast to coast, from communities like Burnaby and New Westminster and other communities across this country, the Calgary Humane Society, the Edmonton Humane Society, the Alberta Humane Society, and the Canadian Humane Society, experts in this area, they are all say that adopting Bill S-203 would make an already bad situation even worse.

All it would do is increase penalties for offences that police cannot prosecute now. It is a meaningless smokescreen and a meaningless attempt by members of Parliament who are trying to address what is a legitimate concern in the minds of Canadians, given the many abuse cases we have seen in the past few weeks. It is a way of simply trying to stop cold any meaningful changes.

The only way for Canadians to see some real meaningful legislation put into place is for folks to make those phone calls. Canadians have to send in those emails over the course of the weekend, so that we can force members of Parliament to stop the Bill S-203 debacle and not to send it back to the Senate for ratification.

The second step is to force the government to take meaningful action. Most Canadians do not believe in this bill. Over 90% of Canadians who were most recently polled, when they see the appalling cases of cruelty and negligence that we have seen, do not want simply some sort of smokescreen around this issue.

Canadians do not want increased penalties for cases that police officers can never prosecute. The people who support this include our law enforcement officers. When they see cruel neglect and appalling violence toward animals, they know that many of these individuals then move on to provide that same kind of egregious abuse to human beings.

Law enforcement officials are also supporting the NDP's stand to stop Bill S-203 and to put in place meaningful legislation. There is absolutely no way to justify Parliament adopting this bad bill. It is not being voted on today.

Canadians who are listening in now, along with their friends, neighbours and families, are hopefully making those phone calls. The Conservatives do not like this. They do not like public pressure. Of course they are reacting negatively. They are saying to Canadians, “don't phone, don't make your point of view known”. That is essentially what they are saying. They do not want Canadians phoning MPs' offices. They do not want emails or letters to come in. It is obvious that every single member in this House has received emails and phone calls. Every single member of this House already knows what is the right thing to do.

What I am saying is that Canadians need to increase that pressure over the course of the weekend because the vote does not take place until next week. I can say that a member of Parliament, whether it is a Bloc member, a Conservative member or a Liberal member, who will hear from 100 constituents over the course of the next three days is not going to vote for this bad legislation. It will stop those members cold.

I am going to allow a couple of minutes for my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan, who also feels strongly about this issue. I am saying that the jig is not up. If Canadians respond over the course of this weekend, they can stop this bad bill from being enacted.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member in our caucus who coordinates private members' business, I have followed this bill very carefully.

It is a bill by Senator John Bryden, who was successful in having the bill move through all stages in the Senate. It has been passed in the Senate and has been referred to the House of Commons and is now being sponsored by the member who tabled the bill here.

It is a very simple bill. It increases penalties, I believe up to 10 years.

Having spent all the time working on private members' business, in my experience private members' bills should not try to do government business, because our rules simply do not provide sufficient debate in Parliament to properly scrutinize any private member's bill.

Private members' bills that come before this place are usually a paragraph long. They are simply trying to make a very specific, focused change.

Under our rules, only two hours of debate are allowed at second reading. That might be 12 speakers. Of the 308 members, only 12 people could even speak.

Then the bill goes to committee. Committees are busy. Private members' business items are a nuisance and they very rarely get a lot of attention there, but let us assume the committee spends a meeting on one. That is another couple of hours. Then the bill is referred back to the House, if it passes at committee, and it gets another two hours at report stage and third reading. In grand total, a private member's bill at all stages in the House may only get six hours of debate. It is ridiculous to think that one could do very much at all stages in just six hours.

Senator Bryden was aware of that. He knew that the only way he could demonstrate the importance of updating animal cruelty legislation was at least to take one step, one step that everybody would understand and that people would be able to take a position on without a lot of debate, because there is not a lot of debate. That is where we are today.

Interestingly enough, there is another private member's bill, Bill C-373, by the member for Ajax—Pickering. That bill was Bill C-50 from a prior Parliament. The justice minister of the day, the member for Mount Royal, had this bill. It was a comprehensive bill but a controversial bill nonetheless. It was quite controversial. There was a lot of debate. There were a lot of issues and a lot of changes were being proposed.

That is going to happen again with a full, comprehensive bill to update this archaic piece of legislation in the manner in which it is needed. We cannot possibly deal with it during private members' business. There just is not enough time to properly consider the bill.

I am speaking in favour of Bill S-203 for the reason that Senator Bryden proposed it, and that is to say, I do not see the government having an appetite to do this. It should be a government bill. It should have the broadest possible and necessary debate within the House to make sure when we correct this that we do the job right, and we cannot do it right in a private member's bill.

The possibility was suggested that maybe we could do this by getting a private member's bill into committee and then making all of the amendments to almost overlay this other bill into the small bill. I have a feeling that probably would not be possible, only because it would be beyond the scope of the bill and it probably would be out of order. There may be some problems.

There also have been some myths about Bill C-373. Many people have written to me saying that I have to vote against Bill S-203 because if that passes, then nobody will have any incentive to make any changes in the future, that it will have been already dealt with.

That is not right. Any piece of legislation can be amended at any time and from time to time. This is one demonstration of the importance of this issue. I hope that the House as a whole would agree that we need to have changes to the animal cruelty legislation.

This bill should in fact be the catalyst to get the government to propose legislation. I encourage and sincerely ask the government to please come forward with legislation which emulates Bill C-50 and any other improvements in there that would make the bill even better. Give that bill to the House and let us work with it. It has to be a government bill. If it is not a government bill, it will never get the proper time for debate and the scrutiny that will be necessary to make a good piece of legislation.That is the real problem.

To suggest that if we passS-203 it is going to stop anything, that is simply not the case. It is incorrect. There will be changes in the future, but unless the House is going to have a piece of legislation in front of it that members can properly address, I do not think it is going to happen.

I can say for sure that if the Liberals form the next government, it will be part of our platform to introduce comprehensive legislation to bring it up to date, into the current realities, on animal cruelty legislation. It is an important piece. We had it the last time we formed government. The then minister of justice, the member for Mount Royal, had Bill C-50 and it will come back.

Bill C-373 is in front of me. It is quite a long bill. These are just the amendments to the existing legislation. There are six pages of amendments. No one is saying that six pages of amendments even in themselves are going to be enough. We need to have comprehensive debate on this legislation when it comes before the House. It needs to go to committee. We need to hear from stakeholders from across the country, those who represent the agricultural industry, farmers, fishermen, anglers, pet owners and those who just understand that we have legislation right now on which it is very difficult to get prosecutions and convictions.

It is a serious problem and Parliament should deal with it. The only way it can deal with it right now is either to have the government table a bill at least covering the items in Bill C-50 from a prior Parliament or at least to pass Bill S-203 to send a signal to Canadians that this is an issue that is important enough to Parliament that we will set the stage for the government to take action. And if it does not, then another party forming government will in fact bring it in. We had it before.

The NDP members are against everything these days. I do not know what it is. I know they have talked about maybe asking the Liberal member to give up his bill, give it to the NDP and one of its members will do it, but it is not going to work.

We all have to understand that with a private member's bill we are not going to get unanimous consent to do the kinds of things we have to do. It is not going to happen in this mix of the House. We need to have a bill that has that full and comprehensive debate, to make sure that all the questions that people have from coast to coast to coast are answered and that the legislation reflects the priorities of Canadians with regard to animal cruelty legislation. We have to hear that and we will not hear that on a private member's bill.

I acknowledge 100% that S-203 takes one small step. It is not that it does not want to do more, but that is all that is possible using a private member's bill.

I am going to support the bill and I am going to continue to fight on behalf of all those who want current, updated and effective animal cruelty legislation.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill S-203, and to do so very strongly.

Before I begin my comments as to why our party is opposing this bill, I want to pick up on a couple of points that have been stated in debate and, I hope, provide a responsible refutation of those points.

For my Conservative friend from Winnipeg who said that the amendments brought forward by my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh are not plausible or reasonable, I would just confirm for him that they were done with very direct intent. It was to delete the bill simply because the bill is wrong. He put the amendment forward because this a bill that does not deserve to be passed.

My friend from Winnipeg should know that the member for Windsor—Tecumseh did not fall off the turnip wagon. He knew exactly what he was doing. He was ensuring that this bill would not go further.

It is strange that, at the same as the Liberals have one of their members putting forward a progressive piece of legislation that is a private member's initiative, they would even think of supporting Bill S-203. Why would the Liberals settle for half measures?

I hope the members of the Liberal Party will take stock of the bill and the juxtaposition between Bill S-203 and Bill C-373, the private member's initiative from the member from Pickering.

I have a comment for my friends from the Bloc. The point that has been made time and again is that this is not good enough. In fact, the Bloc knows that when my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh brought forward amendments at committee to replace this bill with what is progressive legislation, which was actually Bill C-50, that was the time for us to change the bill. However, sadly, that did not get the support of all the members of the committee.

What is wrong with the bill? I guess I will start with the people who, day in and day out, advocate for more responsible animal welfare. These people are not extremists. These people are responsible citizens. They are looking at the proposition that was brought forward by one of the members of the Liberal Party, which we support, as being the way to go. They believe that Bill S-203 will only take us half way. What is the problem with that? The problem is that this issue has been languishing since the 1800s. It puts Canada at the bottom of the list in terms of progress on animal welfare globally in progressive circles.

In fact, if we adopt Bill S-203, it says that it is as good as we could get. Every member who has spoken today has said that it is okay because it is the best we can do for now.

That is not good enough. It is not good enough for this House because this House, before, passed progressive legislation that was much better than this, which is a cut and paste, so to speak, from the member from Pickering's bill, and that was Bill C-50.

What happened to Bill C-50? It went to that other place and got done in, which is part of our problem with the other place. It has decent people there but the institution has absolutely no right to take a bill that has been passed by consensus here and gone through committee and then let it sit there. It is wrong, and most Canadians feel that way about it.

In fact, I was honoured to join people this past weekend in my riding of Ottawa Centre just down the street from here. I joined in with everyday people who asked all members of Parliament to vote against Bill S-203 because it is the wrong way to go. They say that very deliberately, with conviction and with great intelligence.

In fact, Simone Powell and Beth Greenhorn from my riding, who helped organize a rally this past weekend, said just that. They wanted to know why members of Parliament were going to pass a bill that is inferior when we have progressive legislation right in front. I told them I had no idea why.

The NDP has been very clear. We will be supporting Bill C-373 but we will be voting against Bill S-203 because it is the wrong way to go.

We have a party that says that this bill is the best that can be done at this point. We took the content from Bill C-373, which was Bill C-50, and put it into committee as amendments so this bill might have a chance of working but members from the other parties did not want to do that. They did not want to be responsible for animal welfare.

I will explain some of the problems with the bill. We are taking laws from the 1800s and basically moving a nanosecond in terms of progress. We do not understand that it is wrong to have this kind of protection in property rights. It reminds me of the time in Canadian history when women were not considered persons. We now have animals considered as properties. The problem with the law is that it is wrong.

For anyone to suggest that we just torque up some of the fines and pass a law that will suggest that judges have a little more in their toolkits to extend the sentences is troubling and strange, particularly for the Conservative Party, which is saying that we need to be very deliberate with judges and tell them exactly how it is.

My friends in the Liberal Party should know that in making laws in legislation we must be deliberate. We must categorize them. Nomenclature is extremely important. If we are not able to properly define animals, animal welfare and understand where it belongs in terms of the law, then we should not bother trying to fix something that is not fixable because that is the problem with Bill S-203.

The bill says to Canadians that we can only do a little bit, that we cannot actually do the right thing. We can only do a little bit and we will eventually get to it and fix it down the road, maybe with Bill C-373, if it comes on the order paper later, or if it is a matter of having others put proposals forward.

Why is it that with each proposal that has been put forward since 1999, all of them have died on the order paper? Why do they die when they go to the other place? Canadians want to know that. People who work for the protection of animals want to know why that is.

This is something that has been pointed out to those who are looking to have more progressive legislation and are 100% against Bill S-203. They have said the following:

It is shameful that, in 2008, our parliament is considering entrenching animal cruelty offences from the Victorian days.

Further to that, they say:

This bill is simply 19th century legislation adjusted for inflation and we must put a stop to it.

I could not agree more. If we do not address the loopholes that exist in Bill S-203, we are admitting that we cannot fix the problem. It means that either we do not understand the problem or we do not care to fix the problem.

Again, why is it that when this place, through consensus in committee back three parliaments, passes a bill and sends it to the other place, the other place decides that it is not good enough? With all due respect, the Senate does not represent my constituents. The Senate should be saying that this is what the House has given to it and it needs to ensure it gets through and that it is responsible. Its decision to kill the bill was not only reprehensible but it was anti-democratic.

At the end, our party will stand with those who want better legislation, progressive legislation, which is why we will vote against Bill S-203 and, in doing so, will vote to protect animal welfare and not go backward.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, true to its reputation, the Bloc Québécois carefully read Bill S-203 when it was before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It listened with interest to the various witnesses and is well aware of the limitations of Bill S-203.

We are aware of the importance of properly protecting animals from cruelty, so we proposed a series of amendments to improve Bill S-203. Among our proposals was the idea of introducing a clear definition of what an animal is. We also sought to protect stray as well as domestic animals. We also wanted to clarify the criterion for negligence, thereby making it easier to prove. Finally, we also proposed an amendment to formally ban training cocks to fight. Unfortunately all the Bloc's proposed amendments were rejected and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights agreed on February 14, 2008, to report the bill without amendments.

That is not stopping the Bloc Québécois from supporting Bill S-203 in that it is, in fact, a small but real step in the right direction and does not prevent the possible study and adoption of a more complete bill in line with Bill C-50.

The Bloc Québécois does oppose the amendments proposed at report stage by the NDP. These amendments seek nothing less than to kill the bill. Their first amendment would remove the title and their second amendment would remove the rest. The NDP's logic in all this is especially twisted. Instead of voting in favour of an improvement to the legislation, even though we know a lot remains to be done—it is true—the NDP prefers the status quo that it nonetheless vehemently criticizes. Where is the logic in that?

If the NDP truly had animal protection at heart, it would act differently. It would follow the Bloc Québécois' example and act responsibly. Although the Bloc Québécois is aware of the limitations of Bill S-203, it finds that this bill is a small but real step in the right direction, and does not hinder the possible study and adoption of another bill I will speak about shortly. The Bloc Québécois is making no secret of this. It is in favour of a real reform of the animal cruelty provisions and will seriously study this matter again, unlike our colleagues, apparently.

Introduced by the Senate, Bill S-203 is the result of a long legislative process. Indeed, in recent years, six bills were introduced by the Liberal government of the day, specifically, Bill C-10, Bill C-10B, Bill C-15B, Bill C-17, Bill C-22 and Bill C-50. To those we can add those proposed by the Senate, namely, Bill S-24 and Bill S-213, the two predecessors of Bill S-203.

All those bills sought to modify the offences set out in the part of the Criminal Code that deals with cruelty to animals. Some of the bills went even further, however, and proposed real reforms to this bill. The Bloc was particularly in favour of the principle of Bill C-50, which would have created a new section in the Criminal Code to address cruelty to animals, removing this topic from the sections of the code that deal with property.

However, since that reform raised a number of problems, Bill S-24 was introduced in the meantime, to allow much more modest changes. Bill S-203 is a copy of Bill S-213, which was itself a copy of Bill S-24—I hope people are able to follow me.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill S-203, even though we are aware that it does not go far enough. But it is better than nothing. Such a bill will send a message to anyone who mistreats animals. Protecting animals against certain despicable actions will always remain a concern of the Bloc Québécois. The current maximum sentences under the Criminal Code are too lenient for the seriousness of the acts committed.

The bill does not jeopardize legitimate activities involving animal death, such as agriculture, hunting and fishing. This bill, however, is less comprehensive and therefore does not replace Bill C-373, which is a revival of Bill C-50. However, we are not here to discuss that bill today.

The bill amends the Criminal Code to increase the maximum sentences in cases of cruelty to animals. For prosecution by indictment, the maximum sentence is five years. For summary convictions, sentences can range from six to 18 months, along with a possible $10,000 fine.

In the past, judges could prohibit those found guilty from owning or residing with animals for up to two years. Now that ban can be for life. The judge can now require the offender to reimburse costs arising from his or her actions.

Obviously, the bill does not solve all of the existing problems. As I said earlier, this is a baby step, but these new penalties will provide better protection for animals until such time as animal cruelty provisions can be reformed significantly.

By increasing the penalties, we are sending a message to criminals as well as to the judges who have to take this into account in sentencing. The seriousness of a crime is determined in part by the maximum penalty that can be imposed on an offender.

We are also hoping that by making the ban on owning animals indefinite, we will be able to prevent some animal abuse from taking place.

The bill we are considering this afternoon has three major advantages. First, it corrects an anachronism. When the Criminal Code was first drafted back in the 19th century, society did not regard animals the way it does now. The relationships between people and animals have changed, so it makes sense for the Criminal Code to reflect that. Everyone agrees that the current penalties are not severe enough. Bill S-203 goes a little way toward correcting the old-fashioned, weak penalties. The old penalties were based on how people interacted with animals in the 19th century.

The second good thing about this bill is the fact that, as penalties become more severe, there is a good chance that the courts will become stricter with those who are found guilty of crimes against animals, such as mutilation, slaughter, neglect, abandonment, or failure to feed them.

This bill would change the minimum sentence. From now on, if a case is tried as an indictable offence, the minimum sentence will be five years in jail. The fine will go up to $10,000. As it happens, both of these provisions are in the member for Ajax—Pickering's bill, Bill C-373.

There is another excellent change. Henceforth, a court may ban an animal owner for life—or I should say a former owner—from having an animal in his possession. Bill S-203 will now allow a court to impose a prohibition order for life on this owner, whereas the current legislation provides for a two-year prohibition.

The third and last advantage of this bill is that it provides for restitution mechanisms through which the courts can order an individual to pay the costs if an animal has been taken in by an animal welfare organization, for example. Individuals who committed offences of negligence or intentional cruelty could be forced to pay the organizations that have taken in mistreated animals.

These three benefits alone represent a considerable improvement and warrant our support of this bill.

A number of our constituents have written to us comparing this Senate bill and the bill introduced by the member for Ajax—Pickering to be debated later. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of a step in the right direction rather than sticking with the status quo denounced by all. In other words, it is better than nothing.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to speak to Bill S-203, a bill introduced by Senator Bryden that would amend the animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code. Bill S-203 has passed the other place and has been reported back to the House by the justice committee, without amendment, and is now before this House for report stage and third reading.

We have before us a private member's bill that has one simple objective, improving the law's ability to deter, denounce and punish animal cruelty and make offenders take greater responsibility for their crimes.

In stating my support for Bill S-203, I recognize that some hon. members have expressed the view that they cannot support the bill because it does not address some limitations in the current law. It is true that Bill S-203 does not amend current offences or create new ones. However, as members well know, none of the bills introduced by the previous government over the course of about seven years ever pass both chambers.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak to two motions to amend Bill S-203, which were recently tabled by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

The first motion proposes to delete the long title of the bill. This motion is irrelevant to the objective of Bill S-203, which is to increase penalties for current offences. Therefore, I will be opposing the motion.

The second motion is to delete clause 1 of the bill. The bill only has one clause and so that obviously is not warranted either.

Thus, the combined effect of both motions would be to completely gut Bill S-203 of its title and substantive provisions. I, for one, support Bill S-203 and anyone who does obviously will not support either motion.

Hon. members are well aware that if Bill S-203 is passed by this House with any amendments, the amended bill will have to go back to the other place for reconsideration. The report stage amendments tabled by the opposition are an obvious tactic to obstruct or delay any progress that we can make in strengthening our animal cruelty laws. I really have to question the logic and intent of this.

Let us face it, Bill S-203 is a step in the right direction, which in no way prevents any future legislation from being brought forward.

Again, I have to question the motives of anyone who would want to prevent us from moving forward and strengthening our animal cruelty provisions today.

Sending the bill back to the other place raises the prospect that it will join a long list of previous formulations of animal cruelty amendments that were not supported by both Houses. This is unproductive and unnecessary.

Some hon. members of the House have voiced criticism of what Bill S-203 does not address. It is important to consider whether the increase in penalties in Bill S-203, coupled with the current animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code, would provide more protection to animals than if the bill had not been passed. I believe the answer to this question is a resounding yes. Moreover, increasing penalties with regard to animal cruelty has been one of the issues that all proponents of stronger animal cruelty legislation have been able to agree upon over the years.

Currently, the Criminal Code provides a number of distinct animal cruelty offences. Some offences prohibit very specific forms of conduct and others are more general in nature. The offences are set out in sections 444 to 447 of the Criminal Code. The two most frequently charged offences are those of wilfully causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal and causing pain, suffering or injury by neglect.

These types of actions are in fact what most Canadians think about when they think about animal cruelty. Cruelty can be intentional, meaning the result of conduct that a person knows will or would likely cause harm, or it can be the result of gross negligence or severe inadvertence.

With respect to maximum available penalties, all offences, except those concerning cattle, are summary conviction offences only. This means that the maximum sentence an offender can get is six months in prison, a $2,000 fine, or both. This maximum applies no matter how heinous the act of cruelty may be.

By contrast, offences in respect of cattle are pure indictable offences and subject to a ma maximum of five years imprisonment.

One question raised by the law and addressed by Bill S-203 is whether this distinction is still justified. I will return to this point in a moment.

The Criminal Code also contains what is called a prohibition order. This mechanism allows a judge to order a convicted offender to refrain from owning an animal for up to two years.

Prohibition orders are mostly preventive; they actually work to keep animals away from animal abusers. In this way they are aimed primarily at preventing future cruelty toward animals. Prohibition orders are imposed relatively often in animal cruelty cases. The courts clearly feel that the prohibition order is a valuable tool at their disposal in dealing with the people who abuse animals.

Bill S-203 proposes three changes to the current animal cruelty regime, all in the nature of penalty enhancements.

All of the measures address concerns that have been identified with the existing law. There is strong agreement across all sectors that the low maximum penalties for cruelty are inadequate, both to denounce animal cruelty as unacceptable and to punish acts of cruelty when they do occur. Bill S-203 responds to this concern and does so in the following three ways:

First, Bill S-203 would increase maximum terms of imprisonment. It would make all offences hybrid, meaning that the prosecutor may choose to proceed by way of summary conviction procedure or by way of indictment, depending on the seriousness of the case.

Currently, all the offences, except those in relation to cattle, are straight summary conviction offences. These would be hybridized by Bill S-203.

Bill S-203 makes the distinction between penalties for two categories of offences: one for injuring animals intentionally or recklessly; and the second for injuring animals by criminal neglect, to which I have already alluded. This is an important distinction. Some people commit cruelty on purpose. Others commit cruelty by extreme neglect.

Under traditional criminal law principles, knowingly or intentionally doing something is more blameworthy than doing the same thing by gross neglect.

Bill S-203 would introduce a new power to allow the sentencing judge to order the offender to repay the costs of medical care and other forms of care that another person or organization spent caring for the animal that was abused. This new power would be a means of holding the offender financially responsible for the costs of their crime.

Those are the three principal amendments. Unfortunately, I was not able to elaborate on the second major one, but together they constitute a significant improvement to the current law and one with which all Canadians would agree.

I encourage all hon. members to support Bill S-203 and to oppose the two motions currently before the House.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, today we again bring before the House further discussion and debate on a bill dealing with animal cruelty. It has been a long journey. In fact, between the House of Commons and the Senate, this legislation has been debated over and over through different bills for more than a decade.

We are really dealing this afternoon with Bill S-203, a bill that was presented in the Senate by Senator Bryden and which I introduced in the House some weeks ago. Basically we are dealing with amendments to the Criminal Code in sections 444 to 447.

The debate of this has been long. It has affected many people. In fact, many members of Parliament are receiving emails from different groups who stand on different sides of Bill S-203.

Today, I would like to present my argument in terms of the bill that has come from the Senate, a bill that reflects the need for changes in the Criminal Code which would place greater emphasis upon animal cruelty and to those who might be accused or involved with cruelty to animals.

Many people are affected. In fact, when we looked at other bills in terms of Bill C-10 and so forth, we began to realize how broad our constituency was in dealing with those involved and affected by animals. We found in fact that one of the largest jurisdictions is with people who have family pets, but of course the livelihood of many people involved in farming is also affected by what we might do in the House in terms of legislation.

We found that universities and university researchers, and those involved in research for humans dealing with animals, have great concerns of what legislation might produce. We have minor groups such as those who maintain zoos and those who are involved with circuses. In the previous legislation, we were also involved with fishermen because fish became part of the debate on previous legislation.

Above all, we have hunters and trappers, many people in our first nations communities who historically depended upon wildlife for their livelihood.

When we look at all these different groups, we look at what proposals come forward, what animal rights groups say to us, what pet owners say to us, and above all, those in our farming communities. It is interesting to note that in terms of pets, many Canadians have tremendous affection for the cats, dogs, horses, birds and those pets which they maintain in the vicinity of their homes.

When we look at American statistics, this industry, the industry of providing health resources to pet owners, approaches $40 billion U.S. a year. So it is a growing industry. We have to respect and certainly pay great thanks to those who love their animals, those who care for them, those who maintain them, and those who are so interested in any legislation which the House and Parliament would provide.

I am not sure that the Criminal Code is the right place. Probably in future parliaments, we will see special legislation outside the Criminal Code. In terms of animals and cruelty, and respect for animals, the care for animals, we also have our provinces who have a vested interest in some of this because in terms of our wildlife, most wildlife species are protected under provincial legislation.

However, I would like to answer a few of our critics who have called upon some members of Parliament not to support Bill S-203. I personally have some difficulty with that logic because Bill 203 does not preclude the necessity or the fact that further legislation could be brought to the House which would improve upon this legislation. It would tend to see that the various groups that I mentioned are not seriously and adversely affected. It would indeed demonstrate that all of us as Canadians can enjoy the fact that we as a Parliament and as a nation can see that our animals are properly protected and that we can find joy, warmth and comfort in the relations that we have with them.

Bill S-203 basically deals with any person who kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures cattle, or kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose.

If people were to commit offences under the Criminal Code with that description of it, they could be charged with an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years. That is a very serious penalty for those who would be convicted. Furthermore, if the court should decide it is not an indictable offence, there could be fines of up to $10,000.

This cruelty, in section 445.1, says that anyone who wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird or anyone who assists at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds, or promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money in such circumstances, can be convicted of an indictable offence and receive up to five years in prison.

Section 446 goes on to state that anyone who, by wilful neglect, causes damage or injury to animals or who is involved with a domestic animal or a bird or an animal, whether it be wild in nature or in captivity, who abandons it in distress or wilfully neglects or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care, would be committing an offence.

Furthermore, Bill S-203 also attempts to preclude from ownership of animals people who are guilty of these offences. The court, under section 447.1, may make an order prohibiting the accused from owning, having the custody or control of, residing in the same premise as an animal or bird during any period that the court considers appropriate, but in the case of a second or subsequent offence, a minimum of five years.

What I am advocating today is that the House could approve at report stage and third reading this legislation. I know it is not perfect, but it is a tremendous improvement upon the present legislation which was put in place almost a century ago.

There is another bill, in fact, that is before the House. It is further down than my own. However, there will be an opportunity in the future for another government or another member to bring a private member's bill before this assembly that can be debated.

I hope that as time progresses we as Canadians can develop legislation which is valuable to all, protects our animals, birds and fish and, above all, does not cause harm or unjustness to our farmers, fishermen, and those who rely upon these species for their livelihood.

The House resumed from March 10 consideration of Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Animal Cruelty

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, tragically, animal abuse and cruelty are alive and well in this country. A quick glance at recent news headlines makes the case: a man threw five puppies down an outhouse pit; a cat was cooked to death in a microwave by a group of teens; a cat was strangled and hung for public display; 27 horses were found dead from starvation.

Canadians have been trying to strengthen Canada's 115-year-old animal cruelty laws, but Canada's federal governments have shamefully refused to pass tougher animal cruelty sentences.

Of Canadians polled, 93% support tough anti-animal cruelty legislation, including law enforcement officers, researchers, farmers, hunters and animal welfare organizations.

We need to crack down on animal abusers with long overdue tough legislation in the country. We will not achieve this through Bill S-203.

I stand with my NDP colleagues to demand that the government end the neglect and cruelty by bringing forward genuine animal protection laws immediately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a number of petitions from thousands and thousands of Canadians in opposition to Senate Bill S-203, a placebo bill that would not be effective on animal cruelty, calling upon the government to enact effective animal cruelty legislation, such as Bill C-373, or for the government to implement a similar bill.

This is in addition to over 130,000 signatures that have already been presented to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

When we return to the study of Bill S-203, there will be six minutes left for the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a Senate bill in front of us today, a private member's bill, which, quite frankly, is a joke. In spite of the speeches from the other three parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals in particular, in support of Bill S-203, it remains a joke.

One of the first things I learned when I went to law school was that if we were going to have effective deterrents to anti-social or criminal behaviour, there had to be laws that could be enforced so that people who were inclined to anti-social or criminal behaviour knew that they would be caught. Everything that I have ever learned since then with regard to how we prevent or deter deviant behaviour to society has confirmed that basic rule.

At the present time the legislation in the Criminal Code with regard to animal cruelty is around 112 years old. There were very minor amendments in the 1950s, but it has not changed since that time.

Today, the reality is that of all the animal cruelty cases in this country, less than 1% of the perpetrators of those offences are ever charged. The reason is that our prosecutors right across the country and in the territories know that the law is so inadequate as it stands that they cannot get convictions. If I have time I will go through some of the examples, but that is the reality today.

In addition, in this bill there is a gross dereliction of responsibility by the political parties in this country and in this House. They are prepared to allow an unelected irresponsible Senate to dictate how we deal with the issue of animal cruelty.

We have heard the history from some of the other members. The bill with regard to animal cruelty in its most recent reincarnation was Bill C-50 which passed back in the 38th Parliament. The legislation has been passed twice by the House of Commons, the elected body in this country, and has been refused to be passed by the Senate twice.

When Bill C-50 was introduced the last time, it was clear that it had all party support because its prior incarnation had in fact received votes in this House from all parties. It was not even the Conservative Party at that time; it was the Alliance. All parties supported it. There were few exceptions; it was not unanimous, but all political parties supported it. It went through this House with overwhelming support and then got stymied by that unelected irresponsible other house. That is where things were until this bill came forward from the Senate.

We hear the argument why not just support the bill. I will say why we should not support it. It does not do anything. It is as simple as that. It does not do one thing to increase the rate of conviction. All it does is increase the penalties. It does not allow our prosecutors to get any more convictions. It does not allow our judges to convict any more people. That less than 1% conviction rate is going to continue.

We will get the odd case where somebody is convicted and perhaps gets a stiffer penalty, and I repeat perhaps. The reality is that it is not going to change the conviction rate.

We have an alternative. Again I think in particular of the Liberals on the justice committee. I introduced the amendments that would have brought the old bill, Bill C-50, into this bill. It would have dealt with the issues that are important with regard to actually protecting animals. It would have brought it into the 21st century. I do not have time to go through all of the points. I introduced those amendments and they were accepted by the chair of the justice committee as proper and admissible. The member of the Conservative Party who is chairing that committee accepted them as proper amendments.

The amendments mimic exactly the private member's bill from the Liberal member for Ajax—Pickering; it is exactly the same. The Liberals on the committee voted those amendments down. The meaningful reform that has passed this House twice was voted down by a combination of the Liberals and the Conservatives on that committee. The Bloc stood with me. The Bloc then moved some other amendments, which did not go as far as C-50 but would have made some significant progress. What happened? The same coalition of Liberals and Conservatives on that committee voted them down.

I want to be very clear about why I believe we absolutely should be voting this bill down. It was made very clear by Senator Bryden, the author of this bill, that the Senate would not accept a bill from this House. Again, a totally irresponsible unelected body is telling members of the elected House that it does not care what we think or do, but it is not letting this bill through. That reinforced my strong belief that we have to get rid of the Senate. That was the attitude.

Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have the political will to challenge the other place on this bill. They basically have thrown up their hands and said, “Okay, senators, whatever you want, we are not going to buck you”. That is what we are faced with and our animals will continue to be treated as we saw this past weekend with those horses in Alberta. In that case, 29 horses died. Local officials knew for two years about the abuse that was going on. The amendments that I proposed, C-50, the private member's bill from the member for Ajax—Pickering, would have allowed them to move much earlier to protect those animals and perhaps none of them would have been lost.

That is the reality of what we are faced with today. There are two political parties that are unwilling to challenge the unelected Senate, and then trying to convince the Canadian public that Bill S-203 is anything meaningful and is going to somehow deal with the issue. That is where the farce is. That is why I say this bill is a joke, because it does nothing like that.

I want to make one additional point. We did not hear from the member from the Conservative Party who spoke to this bill this morning, that the current governing party was prepared to do anything about bringing C-50 forward as a government bill, to put in place a law that in fact would protect our animals. It is not saying it is going to do that. The reality is that because of the attitude in the Senate and the lack of political will by both the Conservatives and the Liberals to challenge them, they are not in fact going to bring forward anything further. We are just never going to see these amendments as long as that attitude remains in place.

At this time, 110 to 115 years later, we need to update the legislation to have in place meaningful protection for our animals. In my riding an individual clipped the ears of a dog so that the dog would look fiercer. The dog was used for fighting. We saved that dog and got him adopted, but the reality is that person could already own another dog. We cannot prevent that from happening.

There are all sorts of other provisions. We can think of any number of other abuse cases. There is the one out in Alberta where a dog was dragged behind a vehicle, repeatedly injured, grossly and brutally attacked. There were minimal consequences as a result. That is what we need to bring to an end and that is what Bill S-203 does not do.

It is time for this Parliament to do what it is supposed to do in terms of protecting our animals.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today at report stage on Senate Bill C-203. This bill would amend the Criminal Code to impose harsher penalties for animal cruelty offences.

This bill is causing quite a stir among people and organizations calling for improved animal cruelty legislation. The current legislation has not been amended since 1892, 116 years ago, when animals were seen as having a utilitarian function rather than a role as companions, which many animals have taken on over time.

In addition, it so happens that Bill S-203 is being debated before Bill C-373, introduced by the member for Ajax—Pickering. Essentially, Bill C-373 is a repeat of Bill C-50, introduced by the previous government, which is more in line with the needs expressed by animal activists. Moreover, the Bloc supported Bill C-50 in principle. But we will analyze Bill C-373 later in the parliamentary process.

Bill S-203 is not perfect. The witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which I sat on at one point last week, often mentioned the obvious flaws in this bill that we have noticed.

First, Bill S-203 does not clearly define negligence, which means that it will still be difficult to prove that someone is acting negligently towards animals. Second, Bill S-203 provides little protection for wild or stray animals. Third, it keeps the categories of animals currently protected by the 1892 legislation: cattle, dogs and birds.

Under Bill S-203, animals would remain primarily property. The bill does not even deal with individuals who train animals for fighting. Moreover, Bill S-203 contains no provisions to address violent, brutal, extreme acts against animals.

I could go on, but it is important to remember that the major flaw in this bill is its failure to define what an animal is.

By refusing to clearly define what they are, Bill S-203 leaves far too much room for interpretations that would avoid heavy penalities and does not depart from the concept that animals are property. We know that the current maximum sentences under the Criminal Code are too lenient for the seriousness of the acts committed against these living beings.

In addition to the fact that Bill S-203 does not jeopardize legitimate activities involving animal death, such as agriculture, hunting and fishing, it addresses the problem I have mentioned: it increases the maximum sentences and the fines. That is a little better than what we had before.

Judges will have a little more latitude in cases involving animal cruelty. For example, a judge could require an offender to cover the costs incurred by his barbarian actions. We have made progress in the fight against animal cruelty.

However, I think this improvement is minimal, even inadequate when we consider the overall problem. In my eyes, Bill S-203 is just a transition, a step toward something more substantial.

If there is one thing people can count on, it is that the Bloc Québécois does not settle for doing the minimum. We are progressive people with foresight and we will never hesitate to do better for those we represent or for anyone else.

When Bill S-203 was tabled in the Standing Committee on Justice, we listened with interest to the various witnesses.

That is why we are well aware of the bill's limitations. We are aware of the importance of properly protecting animals from cruelty, so we proposed a series of amendments to improve Bill S-203.

Among our proposals was the idea of introducing a clear definition of what an animal is. We also sought to protect stray as well as domestic animals. We also wanted to clarify the criterion for negligence, thereby making it easier to prove. Finally, we also proposed an amendment to formally ban training cocks to fight.

All the Bloc Québécois proposed amendments were rejected. Unfortunately, the committee agreed on Thursday, February 14, to report the bill without amendments. It seems that only the Bloc Québécois truly wants to move quickly in the fight against animal cruelty.

If the other parties had been acting in good faith, if they had put partisanship aside for a minute to make animal welfare a priority, they would have been willing to accept these highly necessary amendments that are adapted to the way things are now.

Instead, we have before us a report saying that Bill S-203 is fine as it is. Only stiffer maximum penalties can remedy the situation. Why act proactively now when Bill C-373 is scheduled to be dealt with shortly? Cruelty against animals will not subside or stop, just to make us feel better, until the study of Bill C-373 can be completed.

From a strictly historical perspective, I remind the House that Bill C-373 stems directly from six previous bills which either died on the order paper or were defeated. There was therefore no progress on the issue. As for Bill S-203, it is the third in a series of identical bills that had the same fate at a time when governments were somewhat more stable than the one we have now.

I can only sympathize with the animal rights advocates who, like us, were seeing a great opportunity to completely overhaul this old legislation. Again, the opportunity is slipping away.

Those who interfered will undoubtedly be judged by the people for this blatant lack of initiative, especially on an issue so close to the heart of the public.

I take comfort in the thought that, at least, the Bloc Québécois has done its part, working beyond mere partisanship and putting forward good ideas that would satisfy animal rights advocates. Protecting animals against certain despicable actions will always remain a concern of my party.

At any rate, we are back where we started with an unamended Bill S-203 with all its flaws. That is all that is on the table at this time. The members of the Bloc Québécois are practical people.

Nonetheless, increasing penalties sends a clear signal to criminals—their actions are reprehensible—as well as to the judges who will have to take these factors into account in making a determination.

I will conclude by saying that passing this timid bill will not in any way hinder the future consideration or passage of a more comprehensive piece of legislation like Bill C-373.

I think that the bill introduced by the Liberal member provides better guarantees than Bill S-203, as clearly pointed out by witnesses before the Standing Committee on Justice.

I hope that the House will also pass Bill C-373 when it comes before us. We believe that these two bills are a winning combination to significantly reduce cruelty to animals.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated a couple of different viewpoints on this bill. It is a pleasure for me to rise in the House again, on behalf of the people of Crowfoot, to speak to Bill S-203, a bill, as was previously mentioned, that was introduced in the House from the Senate chamber. Bill S-203 would amend the animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code.

Many of my constituents have written or contacted my office in regard to this legislation and other pieces of legislation that have come and gone over the years. The member from across the way just made mention of a few of the bills that have been introduced into the House. It has always been an issue that has provoked a certain degree of interest because people do not want to see individuals treating animals cruelly and inhumanely.

Where I come from, many people earn their living on ranches and farms. We are basically a rural constituency. Members can bet their bottom dollar that most ranchers and farmers understand the fact that these animals must be looked after and cared for with a great deal of concern. In most cases, animals are my constituents' livelihood.

I should also make mention that right now, the first part of March, were in the middle of calving season. In the wintertime, although it is very mild back home, I know ranchers, their wives and their children who get up during the night to check on the cattle to ensure everything is all right in the calving process. Therefore, we become very concerned when we hear stories of animal cruelty or abuse and that people are mistreating animals. There is not a lot of toleration for that where I live.

Bill S-203 has been passed by the Senate and sent to the House. It has already passed second reading in the House, was sent to the justice committee, has been reported back to the House by the justice committee without amendment and is now before the House for third reading.

Bill S-203 would amend the Criminal Code in relation to the sentencing of offenders convicted of animal cruelty. It does not create new offences and does not modify existing ones.

What problem does Bill S-203 seek to address? The problem is that the existing legislation and penalties do not reflect the seriousness of cruelty offences. With the exception of certain offences, which are only in relation to cattle, all of the animal cruelty offences are summary conviction offences. This means that they carry a maximum sentence of six months or a $2,000 fine or both. No matter how outrageous or how horrible the action or the consequence to the animal or pet, that is the sentence standard.

To address this serious limitation in the current law, Bill S-203 would enhance the sentencing provision for cruelty offences. It would do so in three significant ways. First, it would make all of the animal cruelty offences hybrid offences. This means that the Crown could elect to proceed by summary conviction or indictment. This would enable the Crown to elect a mode of trial that is appropriate, having regard to the seriousness of the offence and to the culpability of the offender. Again, this is a very important provision, especially in the ranching and farming communities.

A second way in which the sentencing provisions would be enhanced by Bill S-203 is that maximum penalties would be significantly increased. One way that our society traditionally recognizes the seriousness of a particular conduct is by assigning a higher penalty for more serious conduct and infractions. Canadians have made it very clear that the current animal cruelty sentencing provisions do not adequately reflect society's views about the seriousness of the crime. A maximum of six months and a $2,000 fine is simply inadequate to declare our distaste and disapproval of wilful animal cruelty.

Canadian society has paid little attention to animal cruelty over the years. This ignores the true nature of the crime.

Bill S-203 would remedy this deficiency in the law and would signal to potential abusers that they had better think twice before inflicting undue pain and suffering on animals.

The government also hopes that by supporting Bill S-203 a message will be sent to the courts, the Crown, and police that animal cruelty offences should be looked at more seriously. The member in this speech previously talked about the low rate of conviction on some of these and it sometimes very difficult to prove, mens rea, to prove wilful intent.

I think the bill draws out very clearly that the Canadian public want to see tougher sentencing, but they also want to see our law enforcement officers and the Crown taking this type of crime much more seriously.

By supporting Bill S-203, I believe, we as parliamentarians would be reflecting the will of the public in declaring that animal cruelty is a serious crime.

A third manner in which the penalty provisions would be enhanced is that Bill S-203 would remove the current two year maximum duration of an order prohibiting an offender from possessing or living with an animal. The duration of the order would be at the discretion of the court. The courts and the public clearly agree that some offenders should be denied the privilege of having animals in their homes or in their possession for longer periods than just the two year period that is currently there.

This change would respond to those concerns. It would enable courts to more effectively prevent future offences by proscribing whatever duration was appropriate.

As other hon. members have indicated, the enhanced penalty provisions in Bill S-203 constitute a significant step in better recognizing the true nature of animal cruelty offences as crimes of violence.

The bill is important because it changes the penalty scheme to more accurately reflect the serious nature of animal cruelty offences. The higher penalties in Bill S-203 will go a long way in confirming that Parliament is taking this type of crime more seriously.

In stating my support for Bill S-203, I recognize that some hon. members have expressed the view that they cannot support the bill because it does not address important limitations in the current law.

It is true that Bill S-203 does not amend current offences; it does not create new ones. However, as members well know, none of the bills that have been introduced by previous governments over the course of years have ever passed through both chambers. In addition, it is well known that there is some disagreement, some concern and controversy over many of those bills that were brought forward.

Some animal industry groups feared that certain changes would open the door to prosecutions for their traditional activities. We need not get into the details of that long and drawn out history, but I had the privilege of serving on the justice committee when a number of these bills came forward.

On the one hand we would have animal rights groups appearing and saying that this new bill would not go far enough and on the other hand we would have industry, like ranchers, farmers, beef producers, who would say this moves into traditional ways that we go about our business at the ranch.

Therefore, the bill recognizes that changes have to be made, but that they have to be realistic and they have to take into account all those concerns.

Unlike those previous bills, Bill S-203 is straightforward. We have before us a private senate public bill that has one simple objective: improving the law's ability to deter, to denounce and punish animal cruelty, and make offenders take greater responsibility for their crimes.

While there may be some disagreement in the House about whether Bill S-203 accomplishes everything that some people may want to see, today we have just one question before us: should Bill S-203 be supported?

I believe that this question calls for a clear and a simple yes. If this legislation were to pass, the law would be better than it is today. Would it be perfect? I guess that depends on where people's views line up, but this does take a very positive step in addressing a very important issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard about a number of high profile cases of animal abuse. One case was Daisy Duke, the pet dog that was dragged behind a car in Didsbury, Alberta; Princess, a house cat in Alberta that was microwaved; Queen Waldorf in Niagara Falls who was found abandoned on a beach with dumbbells attached to her neck; and the list goes on.

The reality of animal abuse is that every day, in every part of our country, animal abuse is occurring. The people who are watching their pets or wild animals being victimized are asking why we have no laws to go after these individuals and why the laws that we have are so weak. People on the front lines are dealing with animal abuse day in and day out and seeing tragedy after tragedy but they are not able to do anything about it.

I talk with SPCA officers who, on a daily basis, receive these calls but they cannot do anything because their hands are tied. I understand their frustration, as people who love animals, when they witness this abuse, but they are more than people who love animals. I have witnessed how angry they get when they visit those same homes where individuals who torture dogs is the precursor to violence against human beings, such as domestic abuse against a spouse or against the children. They and Canadians are left to wonder why this type of crime is something Parliament simply has not done anything about.

In fact, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, the laws that we have in place today have essentially been unamended since 1892. That is not to say that in the last number of years Parliament has not tried because it has. If we look at the bills that have been put before this House over the last number of years, there is Bill C-17, Bill C-15, Bill C-15B, Bill C-10, Bill C-10B and, as recently as the last Parliament, Bill C-50. In this Parliament, we have my private member's bill, Bill C-373 and Bill S-203, which we are debating today.

I had a great deal of opportunity to work on Bill C-50 in the previous Parliament and to bring all stakeholders together to find common ground, to ask that all sides make compromise and work on something that would work, not only for those who were proponents of protecting animals, but for those who legitimately use animals for their businesses or for their livelihood.

In doing so we found mere unanimity. We found that almost all groups reached a point of compromise on Bill C-50. In fact, this bill or a similar bill was able to pass through the House of Commons twice. It was the will of this House that strong, effective animal cruelty legislation be adopted and moved forward. It was the will of this elected body that we have animal cruelty legislation that reflected the desire of Canadians. However, both times it was the Senate that stood in our way, the Senate that disagreed and wanted amendments.

We almost got there in the last Parliament but, unfortunately, an election got in our way. One would have thought that after all the work and compromise, upon our return to Parliament we would have immediately embraced that compromise and introduced legislation that addressed animal cruelty.

The reality is that did not happen. It was left to private members' bills to address this gaping hole in our Criminal Code, one introduced by myself and one introduced by Senator Bryden in the form of the bill that is before us today that is seeking to be amended, Bill S-203.

One could ask why we simply do not adopt Bill S-203 as a first step and then we will get to the rest. We could do all those things that Parliament had already agreed on at some later date.

I will give a few reasons why Bill S-203 should not be adopted. I will start with the fact that only one-quarter of 1% of animal abuse complaints result in a conviction. Essentially what this bill would do is go after sentencing. One can imagine that if we are only addressing sentencing, when there are convictions on only one-quarter of 1% of the problem, we are only dealing with one-quarter of 1% of the problem, which effectively would do almost nothing to address the issue.

I just want to list a number of things that Bill S-203 does not do that I think people will be surprised to learn. It does not make it easier to convict the perpetrators of crimes toward animals. It does not make it easier to punish people for crimes of neglect toward animals that they are responsible for. It does not offer greater protection to wild or stray animals which often have no protection at all. It does not clarify the confusing language in existing legislation that deals with types of animals differently. It also fails to make it a crime to train animals to fight each other.

These terrible crimes we see where they are pitting animals against animals and ripping each other apart, it would do nothing to deal with that.

The second point is this. When does the House, as an elected body, accept from the Senate a lower standard? For this House to pass legislation twice and then to be told by the Senate that it is too much, too effective, too far and too fast and then to turn it down, one wonders why.

When the Conservatives introduced a bill to get tough on crime, in their words, and then sent it to the Senate, they said that they would not accept any amendments by the Senate. They gave the Senate a limited amount of time to address the bill and said that if the Senate did not pass the bill that they would have an election. Why? It was because crime was important and they needed to address it.

They told the Senate that it needed to listen to the elected will of the House and yet when it comes to animal cruelty there is a double standard. They were willing to say that the House had spoken and that it worked for years to compromise and create effective legislation but, on this bill, crime is not important, it is not a priority, even though, as I mentioned before, it does not just impact animals, it is often a precursor to violence against human beings.

Senator Bryden addressed the issue when he talked about those who wanted effective animal cruelty legislation losing the lever they would have if this bill gets passed. Unfortunately, he is quite right. It is one of the things that those of us who are concerned about our ineffective animal cruelty laws worry most about.

The bill is essentially a placebo. It does nothing to address the real issue of animal cruelty in our country. It will be held out as action when none has been taken. It will be held out as a faint offer of having done something so we can tell our constituents that we acted on animal cruelty when we did nothing more than pass an empty, vacuous bill. We will lose that lever to finally change and amend our laws.

We have already waited 116 years. We embraced years of compromise. As a House, we adopted effective legislation. We will now let the Senate tell us to throw all of that away and to entrench essentially Victorian laws with antiquated notions about what animals are about.

I have a last point on why Bill S-203 should be opposed. Can anyone imagine trying to pass a bill that purports to do something about animal cruelty when every animal welfare group in the country is opposed to it? I am not talking about animal activists. I am talking about those who are on the front lines of dealing with abuse and torture of animals. I am talking about SPCA officers, the humane society and veterinarians who see tortured animals come into their offices and see nothing being done about it. These are the people crying for action and they are not alone.

In fact, Canadians overwhelmingly support effective animal cruelty law. A recent Nanos Research poll found that 85% of respondents supported legislation that would make it easier for law enforcement agencies to prosecute perpetrators who commit crimes against animals, including wild and stray animals. I have a petition of over 130,000 Canadians, which has been presented before the House, in opposition to the Senate bill and calling on support for my bill, Bill C-373.

I do not care if the bill gets passed as my bill or as a government bill. I will gladly give up my bill to anyone in the House who can get it passed and get it passed immediately. I will make the offer to the government today that I will withdraw my bill and offer it to the government as its own so that we can move forward with effective legislation.

I want to talk about what effective legislation can do, which is Bill C-373. It would allow for the prosecution of negligent animal owners. It would protect the rights of those who work and must kill animals for their livelihood. We would protect those in agriculture and animal use industries. It would offer equal protection to pets and farm animals, as well as wild and stray animals. It would make it illegal to train animals to fight one another. It would make it a crime to kill an animal with brutal or vicious intent.

We need effective animal cruelty legislation. The option exists for us to take action today. Let us reject this watered down, vacuous placebo bill and finally do something about animal cruelty.

She said: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party and the constituents I represent in Parkdale—High Park in Toronto, I am pleased to speak to the motions to amend Bill S-203.

I believe that the current configuration of Bill S-203 does not adequately deal with the issue of cruelty to animals. As we all know, the current Criminal Code sections dealing with cruelty to animals date back to 1892. There were minor revisions made in the 1950s, but the basis for the protection of animals comes from their status as property, not sentient beings.

It is an archaic notion that animals are not sentient beings and only exist as property and certainly is not in keeping with understanding, with science and with public sentiment at this time. Several attempts have been made to move animals out of the property section of the Criminal Code, beginning with Bill C-17 in 1999, Bill C-15B in 2001, Bill C-10 in 2002, Bill C-22 in 2004 and Bill C-50 in 2005. All of these bills were either stalled at the Senate or died on the order paper in the House of Commons before they could be passed.

Objections were raised by a coalition of groups opposing the changes, including the Fur Institute and the Federation of Hunters and Anglers. As a result of this pressure, Senator Bryden introduced a bill, originally Bill S-24, now Bill S-203, which increased fines and sentencing and allowed a court order to prohibit offenders from keeping an animal. This was introduced in 2005, was reintroduced as Bill S-213 in 2006, and now has been reintroduced as Bill S-203 as of October 2007.

The reason for my motion to amend the bill and to delete these sections is that the bill leaves animal cruelty in the property section of the Criminal Code and keeps the existing 1892 terminology, which makes it extremely difficult to secure convictions.

We need look no further than the situation as detailed in the media this past weekend concerning an Arabian horse farm in Alberta. Officials were unable to lay charges that would secure a conviction with the owner of the farm. Over the weekend a number of horses died from starvation and neglect. The condition of the remaining horses is nothing short of abysmal. They were not fed. They were not given water. Their living quarters were not clean. They existed in absolutely sub-living conditions. Those animals were in fact slowly being tortured to death through starvation and neglect.

The way this bill is currently configured would not lead to any greater likelihood of conviction for animal owners, breeders or those charged with caring for animals and who neglect those animals. The bill also fails to define animals and does not recognize animals as beings and as such does not address the issue of training animals for animal fights.

As a result, we have been the only party to consistently oppose this bill. We have been working closely with the IFAW, the World Society for the Protection of Animals and the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies in efforts to amend the bill and in our opposition to the bill. I want to thank my NDP colleague from Windsor who has been a constant voice in looking for positive change that would ultimately deal with the issue of animal cruelty.

The issue of animal cruelty is one that touches the hearts of many Canadians. Many of my constituents have contacted me about this issue and they cannot believe that in the 21st century, after so many years of debate and discussion on this issue, that we are still left with a law that treats animals, as it did in the 19th century, as baggage, as non-thinking, non-feeling creatures.

We all know that is not true and that we need to update our laws to reflect this obvious reality. Therefore, the point of my motion is to delete the section of this bill that negates the reality of animals and how they should be treated.

The reason I am urging support for this bill is that it is a change in legislation whose time has come. There is widespread support for this change. If there is any doubt about the necessity for this change, one only needs to read about the terrible tragedy of the Arabian horses lost this past weekend.

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this motion.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Justice and Human Rights

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In accordance with the order of reference of Friday, November 30, 2007, the committee has considered Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals). It has agreed on Thursday, February 14 to report it without amendments.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Just one second. It's my question time. I do have a question for you.

Based on what Ms. Markham has said, that is the difficulty we're struggling with here. I've not heard one group that has come to this committee, either supporting or opposing Bill S-203, suggest that we need lower penalties for those convicted of animal cruelty. I've heard people say they support the bill or they oppose the bill, but no one has said the penalty should be lower. And I've heard a great many of them say the penalty should be higher.

So while I agree this bill is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to animal cruelty, and I know there are other proposals out there, I think part of this campaign against the bill—and I'll let you address this, Mr. Holland—that I find odd is that you have a bill that doesn't claim to do everything. All it claims to do is increase the penalty when someone is convicted. I think that an increased penalty is something we should all support. But the argument we're hearing is that if this bill passes, then there'll never be any more animal cruelty legislation.

Ms. Tkachyk, you mentioned it has been a hundred years and you don't want it to be a hundred more. And I could agree with that. But we are only dealing today with one bill that does one thing, and we either support higher penalties or we support leaving the penalties where they are or we support lower penalties.

I personally support raising the penalties, because with some of the horrific things we hear about and that have been raised, the judges need to have stiffer penalties available. But what I absolutely reject is—and I think it's important for people who are following this to understand, and Mr. Holland, I'll let you address it—the premise that if this bill passes, there cannot be future legislation or that somehow it would take the wind out of the sails of anyone ever passing or bringing forward future legislation that did something else.

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

Thank you for your question, Mr. Ménard. The problem is that the bill does nothing to address cruelty to animals.

If you have 100% of a problem and you can fix 1% of that problem, but you have to entrench all the things that create the other 99%, you're asking me whether you would take that.

I would suggest that's a bad deal. What we're doing is entrenching all the things that give us a problem. Bill S-203 as it exists today entrenches all the things that make our laws third world laws. If you pass this, we're going to exit this House of Commons worse than we started, because we will have passed a placebo motion that people can hold up as a pretence that action was taken. We'll say we passed something; we did something about animal cruelty--

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have a question or two, perhaps to you, Mr. Holland, or you, Ms. Tkachyk.

First, thanks for your presentations.

Would it not be of some comfort to you, limited though it might be, to at least see Bill S-203 passed? Based on the fact, and it's well established, that harsher penalties serve as some deterrent to wrongdoers, would it not move the yardsticks along, advance your noble cause of protecting animals? Would it not move the yardsticks to some extent if, however flawed you may view this bill, it was passed?

[Melissa Tkachyk, Programs Officer, , World Society for the Protection of Animals (Canada)]

Thank you, Chair and honourable members, for allowing me this opportunity to speak about an issue that is of utmost importance to the World Society for the Protection of Animals, and to Canadians.

WSPA is the world's largest international alliance of animal welfare organizations. We work in partnership with more than 850 organizations in 170 countries. Our global partners include the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the American Humane Association, the American SPCA, and many others. WSPA holds consultative status with the United Nations and observer status with the Council of Europe. We work to improve animal welfare standards around the world through field work and advocacy.

WSPA Canada is based in Toronto. We are a Canadian charity and have more than 30,000 supporters across the country, and hundreds of thousands worldwide. If one takes into account the supporters of our member societies in Canada, we represent the voices of over 200,000 Canadians.

WSPA joins its member societies, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Ontario SPCA, and other international groups, such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare, in opposing Bill S-203. It is suggested that this bill was introduced to improve the protection of animals, yet not a single animal protection group in the country supports it. We oppose this bill because it is not an effective improvement to the current animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code, which haven't been significantly revised, as you know, since first enacted in 1892. This antiquated bill does not address the deficiencies in the current legislation, which allow so many animal abusers to slip through the cracks unpunished.

As you know, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies was already before this committee. They've calculated that less than 1% of animal abuse complaints made across the country lead to a conviction. Bill S-203 increases sentencing penalties; this is the only change it makes. We do not support this bill because we do not believe these increases are very useful if law enforcement officers are unable to prosecute animal abusers in the vast majority of cases. What difference does increasing penalties make if offenders cannot be successfully prosecuted?

Bill S-203 requires the court to prove that someone wilfully intended to neglect an animal. We have heard from SPCAs across the country that the burden of proof is too high, and that it is one of the main reasons so few complaints about animal abuse lead to convictions under the Criminal Code. Prosecutors have not been able to convict people who have starved their animals, because they cannot prove that the owners intended to cause harm, even though any reasonable person knows that animals, like people, need food daily and suffer when they are hungry, and that an emaciated body clearly indicates that an animal has been starved for a long period of time. The inactions or actions of the offender should be sufficient to convict them in these cases.

We believe the language in Bill C-373 makes this offence much clearer and will, therefore, improve conviction rates in cases of neglect.

Bill S-203 does not make it an offence to breed, train, or sell animals to fight each other to death, so long as the person is not found actually present at the fight. I'm sure you understand that illegal blood sports are not exactly publicized. Dog fighting should be prohibited as explicitly as cock fighting is in this bill. It is our submission that training dogs to fight and being in possession of dog-fighting equipment should both be prohibited. We believe this is necessary to crack down on the people who are participating in and encouraging this brutal blood sport. Great Britain's Animal Welfare Act takes it even further by making it an offence to profit, publicize, and promote any animal fighting.

Like the antiquated legislation currently in force, Bill S-203 provides less protection for unowned animals, even though stray, feral, and wild animals suffer just the same. So it's not an offence to kill, maim, poison, or wound unowned animals without a reason or a lawful excuse. It is legal now, and would continue to be legal, to beat a stray dog with a baseball bat, so long as the dog dies quickly. WSPA strongly believes that all sentient animals should be equally protected from being killed, maimed, poisoned, or wounded, in addition to being protected from suffering and neglect.

If the government is serious about tackling crime to build stronger and safer communities in Canada, it should not ignore the strong relationship between crimes against animals and crimes against people. Research shows that people who abuse animals are more likely to commit future acts of violence against people. Some of the most notorious serial killers abused animals before they murdered people. Their first crimes against animals should have served as an early warning that they were predisposed to harming people next.

The government has the opportunity to pass effective legislation that not only addresses animal abuse effectively, but can also help stop a cycle of violence in our communities. I do believe that if people are taught to respect the sanctity of animal life, it will contribute to the respect for the sanctity of human life as well.

I have summarized our main concerns with this bill, but there are many other problems, which I won't elaborate on, including the fact that it retains the illogical categorization of animals and the strange definition for cattle that is currently in the Criminal Code. As well, Bill S-203 still distinguishes animals as property, and it categorizes offences against them as property offences. Unlike inanimate objects, animals have the capacity to feel pain and suffer. Since their sentience is why we have legislation to protect them, this very basic fact should be reflected in the language of the law and how these types of offences are labelled and how the offender is punished.

Your committee has heard a lot of unfounded hysterical fears that the amendments animal protection groups support, such as those that are in Bill C-373, will somehow affect the right to hunt, trap, and go fishing. Some stakeholders have accused this bill's opponents of having an ulterior motive, such as an underlying animal rights agenda. Comments like these are absolutely absurd.

WSPA and the many other groups that are supporting Bill C-373 are simply advocating for legislation that effectively protects animals from horrific acts of cruelty, abuse, and neglect. Amendments like the one Bill C-373 proposes strikes a great balance between effectively convicting and punishing those who abuse animals, while protecting those who legally use animals.

During his deputation to your committee, Senator John Bryden acknowledged that his bill dealt only with one part of the problem, but that additional amendments should be made later. The committee is therefore being asked to pass deficient legislation on the grounds that some stakeholders would be uncomfortable with the changes sought by other stakeholders. Should we not be asking instead whether there is any validity to their concerns? If these stakeholders are concerned that the right to use animals is not adequately protected, then the solution, I would think, is not to maintain loopholes in the law, but to clarify the rights of these groups.

WSPA would gladly support this bill if it could be amended to resemble Bill C-373, which is essentially the same bill as the previous bills, Bill C-50, Bill C-15B, Bill C-10, which were twice passed by the House of Commons. Those bills were based on nearly 10 years of consultation, received broad-based support--that's support from all different groups that use animals, including support from all political parties--and also received strong public support.

This bill is clearly flawed if people who starve animals to death, bash stray dogs with bats, and train dogs to fight can slip through the cracks unpunished. This bill does not address the current loopholes, archaic language, and inadequacies in the original legislation. It retains them.

Bill S-203 does not deliver what Canadians are demanding from their government. Canadians do not view animals in the same way as people did in the Victorian era. They want modern, effective, and enforceable legislation that protects animals from reckless acts of cruelty. We have waited a long time for strong legislation to protect animals, but I'm afraid the proposal that is before your committee right now is just not worth that wait.

On behalf of WSPA, I'm asking you today to oppose Bill S-203. It's taken more than 100 years to make changes to our animal cruelty law. Let's make sure the new legislation is worth the wait.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 30, 2007, Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals) is under debate.

On our list of witnesses for today is Mr. Mark Holland, MP; and the World Society for the Protection of Animals, Melissa Tkachyk, programs officer; along with the Department of Justice, Karen Markham, counsel for criminal law policy section.

Please note, witnesses and members, that the time for the conclusion of these presentations and questions would be 4:15 p.m.

So I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Holland.

[The Vice-Chair, Bloc, Réal Ménard]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Before we adjourn today, I want to remind you that on Thursday we will be proceeding with the clause-by-clause study of BillS-203 concerning cruelty to animals. As the clerk is requesting, kindly forward your amendments by the end of the day tomorrow, that is no later than 3 p.m. or 4 p.m.

Do we know if many colleagues plan to propose amendments? I believe Mr. Comartin had indicated that he would probably be putting forward some amendments. We're not asking how many amendments you have exactly, but will you have more than ten?

[Barbara Cartwright]

Well, I'll speak to Bill S-203 and that position. Our concern, as we've said from the outset, is that higher penalties don't bring us higher convictions. IFAW has been involved in this process to increase protection for animals by increasing the number of people being punished for heinous acts of animal cruelty.

The Senate is the one that was entrenched. I have every confidence in this House to pass Bill C-373 and to pass good legislation that protects animals and that responds to Canadians' needs. When the Senate came back with those amendments, this House said no, they wouldn't accept all those amendments. They accepted the non-derogation clause, and they sent it back to the Senate. Unfortunately, prorogation happened, and it hasn't moved forward.

I don't feel that IFAW has been in any way entrenched, except at this point in time, when Bill S-203 does not afford animals any greater protection.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Your organization is diametrically opposed to the seal hunt, yet you just told me that you're not opposed to all forms of hunting. Can you rationalize that? It seems to me that you're opposed to Bill S-203, which does something, in lieu of something else that you don't have yet. Can you please—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

How can you justify or change your position, saying that the seal hunt is not okay, yet other forms of hunting are okay? How do you rationalize that? It's like saying Bill S-203 isn't okay, but some future bill that we're going to see is okay. Can you rationalize that for me?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

How much time do I have? Five minutes?

First of all, I'd like to thank everybody for coming here. It's been very interesting.

I'll basically ask the same questions I asked of the sponsor of the bill and the people who've testified before. I'm very concerned as a farmer and as somebody who represents a rural riding in Alberta that if we go too far we may affect some of the sensibilities of the good folks back home in Alberta, especially those who come from the agricultural sector, those who have used animal husbandry, farming, hunting, fishing, and trapping as a way of life for a certain amount of time in our history.

I'm concerned that if we lose this opportunity right now, we won't have an opportunity. I know there's another bill on the table as well.

But I am also concerned about some of the things that I guess my colleagues have made a point about as well: that there seems to be an all or nothing approach to this piece of legislation before us. When I see an all or nothing approach or see somebody entrenched or with their heels dug in, I'm usually led to believe they have an agenda beyond what's actually being discussed. The rationale I've heard is just not satisfying me, that passing Bill S-203 right now would somehow preclude our going further in the future. I want to get some clarification from some of the folks around the table here to see whether I can get at some of the roots of that agenda.

The IFAW is against the seal hunt, isn't that right? Would it be fair to say the IFAW is against all forms of hunting?

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

As a first world nation, then, we would still be considered something of a joke or an embarrassment after passing Bill S-203. So what we're debating is whether or not we pass something that still leaves us as an embarrassment in the rest of the world.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

What I think I'm hearing is that the animal welfare groups made compromises with respect to getting to Bill C-50—as did many of the animal user groups, by the way; I'm not just talking about one side. Both sides made compromises to get to a middle point.

What we're seeing with Bill S-203 is that it's the bill where there's no compromise; it's the bill that is only addressing concerns on the animal-use side. None of the issues I'm hearing are really being substantively dealt with on the animal welfare side.

This brings me to my last question. This would be to you, Kim. You talked about how Canada sized up relative to the rest of the world. What you didn't get a chance to say is—and it's embarrassing, frankly—that we're behind nations such as the Philippines. That's something we should really hang our heads about, I think, personally.

How would Bill S-203, after it was passed—I hope it doesn't happen, but let's just presume and say it did get passed.... How would Canada stack up against the rest of the world?

[Barbara Cartwright]

We agree. We see Bill C-373 as the result of a great deal of debate and compromise. It's important in a democratic process to engage in that compromise. We can't all have our dream world, regardless of which side we fall on this.

But Bill S-203 doesn't provide anything close to what Bill C-373 provides, which in our opinion, as Ms. Elmslie mentioned, is the result of broad debate, broad support—support from this very House twice, which I always go back to, because to me it's so important that the voices of the people were heard and that it got blocked at the Senate.

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

Thank you very much for coming here this afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Pippolo]

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

[Greg Farrant]

As you might imagine, I don't agree with Ms. Cartwright's perception of the bill. We support Bill S-203. We understand exactly what you're dealing with here. It is a simple, straightforward piece of legislation that is before you.

The other bill, Bill C-373, is not before you at this time, and obviously we're all going to have a chance at some point in time to have that discussion. Today we're here to discuss this particular bill, and we support it because it does move the yardsticks.

[Barbara Cartwright]

Thank you very much, Mr. Moore.

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

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

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

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

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

[Greg Farrant]

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

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

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

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

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

[Don Mitton, Project Director, Canadian Association for Humane Trapping]

Good afternoon, honourable members, and thank for the opportunity to speak to you today about amendments to the animal cruelty sections of the Criminal Code.

I'm Don Mitton, project manager for the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping.

Since 1954, the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping has been diligently and responsibly working toward abolishing the pain and suffering of animals that are trapped for any reason. We have done that by encouraging and supporting research and development of more humane trapping systems and devices, through promoting appropriate legislation, and by encouraging and promoting trapper education.

The current cruelty to animals sections of the Criminal Code are archaic and for many years have not reflected Canadian society's view of animals and what is acceptable treatment. Reform is long overdue. But reforming only the sentencing provisions and leaving the outdated offences unchanged just makes no sense.

One problem in the current law is that the offence of killing an animal without lawful excuse applies only to owned animals. CAHT believes that this protection should be afforded to all animals, including wildlife, since lawful excuse already includes such activities as hunting, trapping, fishing, and scientific research, etc.

As you know, efforts to modernize Canada's federal animal cruelty law have been going on for more than eight years now, starting with a bill introduced by the Liberal government of the day in 1999. There has been considerable debate, both at the political level as well as among various stakeholders, over the years. Compromise was made and, with a few amendments, accepted in 2003. Almost all stakeholders were in agreement.

It is important to note the extremely broad support the bill had in 2003. Humane societies, SPCAs, animal care and control agencies, other animal protection groups, veterinarians, and police associations have been onside since the beginning.

But various animal-use industry groups were concerned about being exposed to risk of prosecution for carrying out their standard practices under the proposed new bill. These concerns were put to rest with the amendments in 2003, and the bill was supported by dozens of national organizations representing farmers, trappers, researchers, and others.

Many of these animal-use industry groups formed a large coalition that actively and repeatedly called on government to reintroduce the bill after it died on the order paper. I understand you heard from this coalition last week. Unfortunately, the one group that did not agree was the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which shamelessly asked for a specific exemption from the Criminal Code. Asking for an exemption from the animal cruelty section of the Criminal Code equates to asking for permission to be cruel to animals.

The fundamental concepts of good animal cruelty legislation are to prohibit wilfully and negligently causing unnecessary pain and suffering, killing animals without a lawful excuse, and abandoning or negligently failing to provide proper care for an animal. Why would anyone need an exemption from these offences? It is akin to exempting police officers or hockey players from assault laws, and we don't do that. No one should be exempt from the Criminal Code.

The CAHT believes that this radical position taken by the powerful lobby groups representing hunters and anglers led to the very introduction of Bill S-203. These groups convinced politicians that the bill that had so much support in 2003, now tabled as Bill C-373, would make hunting and fishing illegal.

With all due respect, that is an absurd notion. There is absolutely no legal basis on which to suggest that hunting, fishing, or trapping would become illegal any more than farming, scientific research, and euthanizing animals have been illegal for the past 115 years. The term “lawful excuse” permits lawful activities.

The Criminal Code responds to an individual's crimes against animals rather than legitimate industry practices to kill or use animals. Reasonable, widely accepted industry standards that avoid causing unnecessary pain, suffering, or injury will qualify as a lawful excuse.

Legislation, regulations, and other lawful excuses permit over 400 million animals to be raised and killed in Canada each year. SPCAs and humane societies kill many thousands of unwanted or unhealthy animals each year, as authorized by provincial statutes in accordance with approved euthanasia methods.

Statutory provisions enable householders to kill mice, rats, and legally defined pests. Slaughterhouses are federally or provincially authorized to kill livestock. Researchers can kill experimental animals pursuant to the guidelines of the Canadian Council on Animal Care. Licensed hunters, trappers, and anglers are authorized by provincial legislation and permits to kill wild animals and fish.

However, the requirement that no one can intentionally cause pain and suffering or injury to an animal using any means that is unnecessary continues as a fundamental requirement in all cases. This is how it is today and how it would remain under a bill like Bill C-373.

CAHT urges this committee to listen hard to the views of the majority of Canadians, and to humane societies and SPCAs across Canada, the very people who are using and applying the law. These organizations promote animal welfare, not animal rights.

CAHT knows that Canadians want better animal cruelty legislation. They have spoken out against Bill S-203.

We hope this committee will see that good legislation is about so much more than just penalties. Given the polarization of this issue, rushing to make a decision is both ill-advised and contrary to the democratic process.

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Shelagh MacDonald]

Okay. I'm sorry.

Number three, it is currently an offence to kill an owned animal without a lawful excuse—that would include farming, fishing, hunting, trapping, animal research, or protection of life or property—but it is not an offence to kill an unowned animal without a lawful excuse. Currently, animal crimes are considered property offences under the Criminal Code. The vast majority of Canadians have stated that they think all animals should be protected because they can suffer, regardless of whether they are somebody's property.

There is currently no offence for particularly heinous crimes of brutally and viciously killing animals. This kind of offence is needed to address hopefully very rare but very violent crimes that would otherwise fall through the cracks and are certainly an indication of violent crimes in our society that need to be addressed.

Having a separate section for cattle doesn't make any sense in the 21st century, and also referring to different types of animals in the current legislation, such as birds, dogs, cocks, is just very outdated. We think it needs to be fixed. And of course there are the inadequate penalty provisions, which this bill does fix.

We feel that Canada's current animal cruelty law is an embarrassment: it's out of date, it's ineffective, it's inadequate. Passing Bill S-203 will relieve neither the embarrassment, the ineffectiveness, nor the inadequacy.

It appears that there is considerable pressure to get Bill S-203 passed. Most politicians seem to be tired of discussing animal cruelty amendments and just want to get something enacted. But passing archaic, inadequate legislation just to get something passed is not what Canadians expect of our Parliament.

Canadians have spoken out against Bill S-203 repeatedly and in large numbers. The horrific case a little over a year and a half ago of Daisy Duke, a dog in Didsbury, Alberta, that was beaten, bound, and dragged behind a car, last year sparked a petition, which 111,000 Canadians signed, specifically worded as opposing Bill S-203, at that time called Bill S-24. That's a very large number of signatures on a petition.

A national survey conducted by SES Research in November 2006 found that more than 85% of Canadians think wild or stray animals should be protected from cruelty. The response to that question was virtually the same from all regions of the country, from urban and rural areas, and from those who hunt or fish.

More than 76% of Canadians support changing the law so that animal cruelty crimes are no longer property offences. In fact, people living in rural areas, those who hunt or fish, and people who traditionally vote Conservative are even more likely to support that change.

As you know, Mark Holland has tabled Bill C-373, which is almost identical to the bill that had gained widespread support in 2003. Let's not forget that the said bill had the support of all political parties in the House of Commons, of animal protection organizations, veterinarians, police associations, and the majority of animal use industries, including farmers, trappers, and researchers. You are now considering passage of a bill that doesn't have anywhere near that level of support.

One rather powerful sector that didn't support the bill in 2003 was the hunting and fishing lobby, which actually asked for a specific exemption from the animal cruelty sections of the Criminal Code. That is like asking for the right to be cruel to animals, which is not appropriate in the Criminal Code. I'm quite sure most hunters and anglers have no desire to be cruel to animals, so they certainly don't need such an exemption, and it's just not appropriate.

These powerful groups, the anglers and hunters, have successfully convinced politicians that a bill like Bill C-373 would make hunting and fishing illegal because they don't think it would be considered a lawful excuse. That premise is precisely why these groups are here today trying to convince you to pass this bill. But really, the term “lawful excuse” means “that which is lawful”. It is preposterous to suggest that heritage activities such as hunting, fishing, or trapping would not be considered lawful.

Those groups that oppose Bill S-203 do so not because of what it does but because of what it does not do. That is why you should oppose this bill, and that's why we oppose it.

Many have acknowledged that this bill doesn't fix all the problems but suggest we should do this now and fix the rest later. As politicians, you know that's not likely to happen. You know it will take years, maybe decades, before this Parliament is prepared to consider more animal cruelty amendments.

So the question is whether you support a wholly inadequate bill, just so you can say you did something, or you listen to Canadians and to SPCAs across Canada that enforce the laws, and reject this archaic and defective bill that won't improve the lives of abused animals.

I'm going to pass it over to Hugh. He's the chief inspector for the Ontario SPCA.

[Dr. John Drake]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's my first question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

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

Mr. Lee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I'd like to call the members to the table.

We have two very quick items that have to be dealt with.

The first, of course, is the future business of the committee. After our break, we have to deal with the legislation we have on our plate. There are two items we would like to see come out of the Senate, Bill S-203, which is animal cruelty—it's sitting in limbo right now—and also Mr. Moore's motion on impaired driving.

I would request that committee members get their lists of witnesses forward. We ran into a serious problem here with this particular bill, calling witnesses at the last minute just to fill in the time. That should not be the case. It was well noted what we were going to be handling. And there was a real shortfall with the witnesses.

Dealing with this particular bill, for next Thursday we will have present the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Department of Health, and a professor from the University of Montreal.

Criminal Code

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals).

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, it is my pleasure to reintroduce a bill to the House which recently has been approved in the Senate, entitled Bill S-203.

Pursuant to Standing Order 86(2), I wish to state that Bill S-203 is in the same form as Bill S-213 which was before the House in the first session, and I ask that the bill be now reinstated.

For your information, Mr. Speaker, it is an act to amend the animal cruelty act. I believe it has broad support across the House and for those who have better ideas in terms of what might happen here, I know that it may be a matter of some debate, but we have to do something to amend an old act which has been before our country for so many years.

This certainly would give greater support to those who are concerned about what happens with the many animals that people enjoy and which often are our friends.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)