Bill C-84 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to
(a) define “bestiality”;
(b) expand the scope of the offence of encouraging, aiding or assisting at the fighting or baiting of animals or birds so that the offence
(i) includes promoting, arranging, receiving money for or taking part in the fighting or baiting of animals or birds, and
(ii) also applies with respect to the training, transporting or breeding of animals or birds for fighting or baiting; and
(c) expand the scope of the offence of building, making, maintaining or keeping a cockpit so that the offence applies with respect to any arena for animal fighting.

Bill C-84—Time Allocation Motion

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have stated, I think there is a high degree of consensus on all sides of the House for this bill. I disagree with the hon. member's interpretation of events over the last two years, roughly, with regard to the way in which this bill proceeded. I do agree on the contribution made by the member for Calgary Nose Hill with a private member's bill that covers one of the two subject matters addressed in this bill. However, I think Canadians across Canada are waiting for this bill to get through.

Again, sharing the sentiment that there is much more work to be done, we feel it is time to get this bill through the House of Commons, the Senate and on to royal assent, such that we can move on to a larger look at the question of animal rights in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the more I hear the justice minister, the more perplexed I am about the government.

For weeks and weeks, it did not bring this forward on the Order Paper. The bill was languishing because of government inaction. Then the government brought it forward, but brought it forward with the sledgehammer of closure to shut down debate, even though all members have indicated interest. A couple of members wanted to speak, but all members wanted to get on with this. Discussions can take place, and from there we can have a voice vote or a rapid vote. However, if there has been any delay, it has been on the government side.

To counteract this, an hour has been used up, which could have been used for discussion from the members who wanted to make their views known on the record. Then we would have proceeded to a vote. Instead, we have a very ham-fisted, sledgehammer imposition by the Liberal government that delays any discussion debate for an hour. This is after the government made the bill languish on the side rather than bringing it forward for debate in the House of Commons.

I am so perplexed by the strategy of the government. It seems desperate and incompetent at the same time. Why is the government imposing a sledgehammer rather than just allowing the members speak who want to put their views on the record, followed by the vote that all members want? Why use the sledgehammer when it was so unnecessary?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill was introduced on October 18, 2018, with second reading debate on October 29, 2018. The justice committee studied it and concurred in a report stage and third reading debate that began on March 18, 2019.

I put it to the hon. member that there has been ample opportunity for members to speak to the bill and have an impact on it. There were three hours of debate at the second reading stage, there was no report stage debate, and there was an hour of debate at third reading.

Members in the House who have wanted to speak on the bill and make their views known have had ample opportunity to do so.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say for the hon. Minister of Justice that not all members in this place have had ample opportunity. Some of us have had no opportunity.

I would also like to say that, while the Green Party is in strong agreement with the bill, there is a difficulty with repeatedly using time allocation. This debate is about the question of time allocation. The overall message, which is most unfortunate, appears to be that allowing full debate on legislation, whether it is on an omnibus budget bill or a small bill that is relatively widely supported, such as Bill C-84, is basically a waste of time. The message is that it is up to the government to pass the bills, and when the opposition debates, it is basically a waste of time and gets in the government's way.

I do not think that is what the government wants to communicate to Canadians, but the number of times time allocation has been used in this place is not only deeply shocking to me, but it is horrific. It means that what Stephen Harper did in this place is now normalized by the very members who used to decry it.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the substantive concern that the hon. leader of the Green Party is raising. I can speak to the bills that I am, as minister, shepherding through the House. Certainly, on Bill C-84, the process has worked in the sense that a number of very good amendments were made at committee stage and there was robust debate.

Both Bill C-75 and Bill C-78 have had a number of interesting discussions in the House. They have gone to the other place. We are thinking about amendments on them based on our work in this House and on what the Senate is doing.

The process is working. I think we are approaching it in good faith. The fact of the matter is that sometimes we run out of time, and we feel we have done that in this particular case.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to be on both opposition and government benches. I have recognized on both sides that at times there is a need to use time allocation, because it is a tool that is there to ensure that priority bills can be passed. In fact, we have seen the New Democratic Party members here identify government bills they believe are a priority, and they supported time allocation.

It is interesting to listen to the questions that have been posed to the minister. When was that interest expressed to have an hour debate and then allow it to pass? The expression of interest to do so only came after time allocation was put into place.

For the minister, in recognizing the importance of Bill C-84, I suspect that if we did not bring in time allocation, there would be a very good chance we might not be passing the bill today, because we have seen oppositions in the past talk out a bill that everyone supports, ultimately forcing government to bring in time allocation.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the hon. member's wisdom in all matters procedural in this place.

I am in an awkward position to answer that question in the sense that I was not privy to the conversations and negotiations that were had in order to advance the agenda of this place as things move forward.

Although this is a small bill in terms of length, it is an important bill focusing on two kinds of activity, which we as Canadian society feel are reprehensible. Therefore we are taking strong measures against each of them in each case. Both were deemed important enough to be included in the bill. Both were deemed important enough to create a new government bill, and so we are moving forward with it because Canadian society wants us to.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the justice committee's study of Bill C-84, we heard evidence about a strong correlation between individuals who commit acts of bestiality and individuals who abuse women and children.

It was on that basis that I put forward an amendment at committee to amend section 160 to require that all individuals who commit acts of bestiality and are convicted under section 160 be required to register with the National Sex Offender Registry. I am very pleased all members of committee supported that amendment.

I was wondering if the minister could speak to that issue.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

It would be a pleasure to speak to that issue, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his work with that amendment. He rightly identified a gap in the previous legislation in which, although some events associated with bestiality could be caught under other sexual offences, bestiality simpliciter would not be caught. He rightly identified that and moved that forward in committee, and I thank him for that. It is a better bill because of that.

He is absolutely right that studies are now increasingly linking bestiality with other forms of sexual abuse, particularly with children, so it is important to move forward in a coherent and unified fashion.

Once again, I thank the member for his work on the bill. I thank him in particular for this particular amendment.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, part of the minister's argument today has been that we need to get this legislation to the Senate to speed things up. I can understand that. We only have so much time.

That being said, by the same token, Bill C-75 has gone to the other place and it is a much larger bill. Would the member not agree that this particular bill, Bill C-84, should have been wrapped up in Bill C-75, gone to the justice committee and had full exposure to all of the different parts in that omnibus piece of legislation, so it could have maybe left a stand-alone bill for us to have a full discussion on the deferred prosecution agreements, an issue which was in Bill C-74, division 20?

That piece of legislation did not get a full hearing at finance committee. Only one witness from the justice department came to speak to it. I still get calls on a regular basis from people in both the academic and the legal communities who feel that the Liberal government's approach to that piece of omnibus legislation maligned Parliament and denied the proper hearing of major changes to the Criminal Code.

Would the member not agree that this place must be respected? Would he agree that that kind of sleight of hand by the government needs to change?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has brought up Bill C-75. We feel it is an outstanding piece of legislation that goes a long way toward improving the efficiency, fairness and speed, frankly, of our criminal justice system.

The unifying theme of Bill C-75 is, in fact, to make the criminal justice system more fair, more efficient and better working, particularly in light of rulings by the Supreme Court of Canada, such as Jordan, which force us to take those matters seriously.

The elements brought up in Bill C-84 do not have that same goal in mind, if I may, and therefore it is appropriate that Bill C-84 be part of a separate piece of legislation. It just did not fit in Bill C-75.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully, and the justice minister said that without time allocation at second reading this bill passed after three hours of debate. Then he said that for third reading there has been an hour of debate, but Liberals want to impose closure, that is shut down Parliament. Based on what he just said, has it not occurred to him that if members of Parliament from all parties are willing to move on after three hours of debate at second reading, it would be roughly similar at third reading? By his activity today in shutting down Parliament, by moving this sledgehammer, all he has done is complicate passage of the bill when there were perhaps only two hours of debate still to come.

Any reasonable Canadian would say three hours of debate on a important bill like this before the House of Commons is not excessive in any way. It is not opposition parties trying to delay. It is not opposition members of Parliament saying they are not going to pass the bill. Any reasonable Canadian would assume that the three hours of scrutiny are just part of moving things through.

However, we saw that the government, by the justice minister's own admission, sat on the bill for well over a month, almost a month and a half. The problem is the government. The problem is the incompetence of the government in trying to move motions and bills through the House of Commons. The problem is not opposition members of Parliament, who simply want a couple of hours of debate in order to finalize before we have the vote.

Why did the justice minister close down debate when, by his own admission, we were only talking about a couple of hours and some members of Parliament who wanted to express their views on this subject?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Before the hon. minister answers that question, I want to point out that sometimes we put our earpieces down. When we put them down, we should try not to put them next to the microphone. It is just to save the ears of the translators or the interpreters, because I know they put a lot of effort into it and we do not want to make their job harder than it is.

The hon. minister.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wondered what that whistling was in my ear. When took my earpiece out, I realized it was the hon. member.

I think Canadians expect us as a government to move forward with balanced debate, with respect for democracy, but also with the ability and the desire to get pieces of legislation through Parliament in order that they be enacted in law. Reflecting on that balance, the government feels it is time to move forward with the bill.

Again, I repeat. Because of the degree of agreement that exists in the House, because of the time taken, and because of the narrow scope of the bill, it is time to move forward. There has been ample opportunity to discuss the bill, debate the bill and amend the bill. I just cited a member opposite for his yeoman's work on the bill, and Canadians deserve to have the bill enacted because of the vices that it corrects.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?