This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.
Jody Wilson-Raybould Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting), as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Diane Lebouthillier Liberal Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
moved that Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting), be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Arif Virani Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.
Mr. Speaker, this is my first time rising since the events on Friday. I want to state for the record my solidarity, and the solidarity of all parliamentarians, with the people of New Zealand and the Muslims who were killed and injured at the two mosques in Christchurch.
I rise today to speak to Bill C-84. The bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code to strengthen the laws around bestiality and animal fighting. As members will recall, proposed amendments to Bill C-84 will, among other things, address a gap in the law identified by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of the Crown v. D.L.W. That decision and its interpretation of the bestiality provisions led to calls for law reform to address a gap identified by the court; that is the common law meaning of bestiality was limited previously to simply penetrative acts.
The bill's proposal to identify bestiality as “any contact, for a sexual purpose, with an animal” would address that very gap. Although some may view this provision as a modest step, it is an important one that needs to be taken, and our government is very appreciative of the non-partisan approach that members from all sides have taken to advancing this needed reform in an expeditious manner through Parliament. We would like to note, in particular, the unanimous support the bill received at second reading and in committee.
I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and to the members of that committee for their comprehensive review of this bill.
After listening to the testimony presented during the study of Bill C-84, the committee adopted three key amendments based on the expertise of witnesses who expressed their support for this bill. These amendments will provide for improved animal protections by authorizing the courts to issue a prohibition or restitution order when a person is found guilty of a bestiality offence. The amendments will also eliminate the requirement to destroy birds used in cockfighting.
Finally, these amendments will ensure that the names of those found guilty of engaging in a sexual act with an animal, or, in other words, those found guilty of the bestiality simpliciter offence, are added to the national sex offender registry. This amendment was proposed by the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton of the official opposition.
The issue of animal rights and welfare is an important one right around the country and in particular to the constituents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. I have listened closely to the concerns of those residents. We are committed, as a government, to doing better on this issue by supporting this important bill.
I have heard in my riding, for example, from constituents such as Josie Candito, who has spoken to me repeatedly and testified while we studied the bill at committee, about the link between animal abuse and the abuse of children and women. What we know on that very point is that it is not clear that every animal abuser ends up abusing children and women. However, what is absolutely clear, and what the facts demonstrated at committee, is that people who abuse women and children have in their history an antecedence of having abused animals. This is a critical point because the bill targets that.
What we also heard from people like Anne Griffin and Tracey Capes, both of whom came before the federal/provincial animal welfare working group on Parliament Hill, are their thoughts regarding the bill and our government's continued efforts and progress to protect animals.
However, the one thing that my constituents have consistently reiterated is that there is still more work to be done to protect animals. They have told me that our next steps must be informed by a national consultation regarding the most important issues to Canadians or a high-level analysis by the federal government, taking into account the broad perspectives on an issue as vast as animal welfare. I have told them, the current Minister of Justice has told them and the former minister of justice has told them that Bill C-84 is an important first step toward our government's goal of more comprehensive protection for animals, and we indeed intend to continue this important work.
In my time today, I will review some of this important testimony and discuss how these amendments bolster the objectives sought by this crucial legislation.
As mentioned, the first amendment adopted by the committee would authorize a court to issue an animal prohibition or restitution order for each of the three bestiality offences found in section 160 of the code.
The object of this prohibition order is to prohibit offenders convicted of bestiality from possessing, having the care of or control over, or residing with an animal for any period that the court deems appropriate up to a lifetime prohibition. A lifetime ban may indeed be necessary in certain circumstances, having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of certain offenders. This was a helpful suggestion originally made by one of the important stakeholders who testified before the justice committee, Ms. Camille Labchuk of Animal Justice.
The restitution order specifically would require the offender to repay an individual or an organization the costs of caring for the injured animal as a result of a criminal offence. This would also make the offender more accountable for the consequences of his or her actions.
The proposed amendment builds on section 447.1 of the Criminal Code, which authorizes the court to issue such orders for persons convicted of animal cruelty offences. Right now, when someone is charged with a bestiality offence under section 160 of the Criminal Code, such orders can be issued only at the time of sentencing as a condition of a probation order or conditional sentence. These orders are limited in duration to the term of the imposed conditions and expire after that.
This was pointed out by Sergeant Teena Stoddart, from the Ottawa Police Service, when she testified before the committee. That means there is a gap in animal welfare measures, since the courts can issue such orders for animal cruelty offences but not for bestiality offences.
The committee also heard from several other witnesses on this issue, including, as I mentioned, Ms. Labchuk, executive director for Animal Justice; Ms. Barbara Cartwright, CEO of Humane Canada; Dr. Alice Crook from the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association; and Professor Peter Sankoff from the University of Alberta, Faculty of Law. They all agreed on the need for this amendment to this important bill. Indeed, this amendment is entirely consistent with the objectives in the bill, and we on this side of the House are pleased to support it.
I would now like to turn my attention to the second amendment adopted by the committee, which provides for the repeal of subsection 447(3) of the Criminal Code.
The current subsection requires a peace officer who finds birds at cockfighting premises to bring the birds to a justice of the peace so the JP can order they be destroyed. That provision requires the automatic destruction of birds, but does not apply to other animals, such as dogs. It is very much a vestige of the distant past when animal fighting primarily involved only cockfighting and resulted in the roosters being so severely injured that they needed to be destroyed.
Nowadays, however, there are better ways to solve this problem in order to eliminate any legal loopholes in animal protection. Ensuring the welfare of these animals is a key objective for the provincial and territorial legislation and for the general powers set out in the Criminal Code.
First, the provinces and territories have jurisdiction over matters concerning animal welfare. That includes passing legislation dealing specifically with the seizure of animals in distress and the care they must receive, where possible, as well as the administration of humane euthanasia if necessary.
Second, some witnesses and parliamentarians believe that the criminal law does not address the seizure and automatic destruction of mistreated animals in an appropriate manner.
In fact, Madam Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, testified before the committee that the automatic destruction of birds found in a cockfighting ring in the previous version of the section was “completely needless, and it ties the hands of authorities when there may be a better option for the birds.”
Ms. Labchuk further testified before the committee. She said:
We think the fate of any bird seized should be decided on a case-by-case basis. This is already done for dogs and other animals rescued from fighting rings. There is no principled reason that roosters or birds forced to fight should be automatically killed. It may be appropriate to rehabilitate them. It may be appropriate to send them to a sanctuary, where they can receive lifelong care and still enjoy a high quality of life.
It should be noted that Ms. Labchuk's position was broadly supported by other witnesses, including Ms. Cartwright, the CEO of Humane Canada.
All 10 provinces and the Yukon Territory empower peace officers and animal welfare inspectors to seize animals in distress. Furthermore, where appropriate, the legislation provides for the animals to be humanely destroyed.
Nunavut and the Northwest Territories allow peace officers and animal protection officers to seize dogs, and these territories have legislation requiring general rehabilitation for the dogs, as well as humane euthanasia where appropriate.
In addition to these protection measures, the Criminal Code also confers general powers on peace officers and public officers to seize offence-related property while executing a search warrant. Section 487 of the Criminal Code therefore authorizes peace officers to seize an animal, where circumstances warrant.
Once more, pursuant to section 489 of the Criminal Code, things not specified in a warrant can also be seized where a thing has been obtained by the commission of an offence, used in the commission of an offence or something that will afford evidence in respect of an offence under any act of Parliament. Accordingly, repealing subsection 447(3) would leave no gap in the law, which is an important point. Instead, repealing it would leave the matter of seizure and the question of whether care or euthanasia would be appropriate to be dealt with under applicable provincial laws and by persons trained specifically in such matters.
I would now like to draw the attention of the House to the third amendment adopted by the committee. This amendment would add the bestiality simpliciter offence, in subsection 160(1), to the list of designated offences for which an offender must be automatically ordered to register and comply with the requirements of the National Sex Offender Registry, pursuant to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, or SOIRA, as it is commonly called.
This legislation, enacted in 2004, created the National Sex Offender Registry to help Canadian law enforcement agencies investigate sex crimes by registering specific information on sex offenders. When an offender is found guilty of a designated sexual offence, the court must order the offender to register with the National Sex Offender Registry and comply with the SOIRA for a period of 10 years, 20 years, or even indefinitely. Offenders found guilty of other designated infractions may be ordered to register with the registry and to comply with the SOIRA if prosecutors established the intent to commit a sexual offence during the commission of an offence like breaking and entering in relation to a dwelling-house, in paragraph 348(1)(d).
Currently, the designated sexual offences include subsection 160(2), compelling the commission of bestiality, which was added in 2011, and subsection 160(3), bestiality in the presence of or by a child, which was included in 2004 in an enactment of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, known in English as SOIRA.
The justice committee received testimony and studies on the link between animal abuse and bestiality and acts of violence against persons, particularly women and children. I alluded to this at the outset, and it bears repeating. We do not know definitively that all animal abusers end up abusing women and children, but we know that for people who abuse women and children, their antecedents include abuse of animals in all instances. That was the evidence before the committee.
For example, the justice committee heard about the innovative work conducted by the Canadian Violence Link Coalition. It was launched to “study and bring forward all of the different academic research that's going on and that supports the links between animal violence and human violence.” The work of the Canadian Violence Link Coalition follows a multidisciplinary, multi-sector and collaborative information-sharing approach in strengthening the response to animal abuse and neglect and establishing its link to the abuse of humans.
During her testimony, Ms. Cartwright commented, “While not all abusers are serial killers, all serial killers are animal abusers.” The evidence I have been referencing is that of Ms. Cartwright, before the committee. The evidence demonstrates that abuse of humans is a common step up from animal abuse for individuals who have a propensity for serial violence.
Ms. Cartwright's remarks were reiterated by other experts, including Sergeant Teena Stoddart, who spoke about research reported in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry showing that, out of a group of 943 inmates selected at random, half of sex offenders and one third of child molesters had abused animals as adolescents. The same study also confirmed that child molesters use animals to attract and win over their victims. By making inappropriate sexual contact with the animals, the molesters desensitize the children and normalize sexual contacts between adults and children.
There is growing international research in this area, but we were pleased to learn of new Canadian data collected by Amy Fitzgerald of the University of Windsor, primarily on the link between animal abuse and interpersonal and spousal abuse. I have to admit I was surprised to hear that Canadian research shows that these violence links are worse in Canada than abroad, according to similar international studies.
More specifically, women who are victims of violence also report that their animal is in the same situation.
This violence link is further supported by the testimony of Ms. Lianna McDonald, executive director, and Ms. Monique St. Germain, general counsel, of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. They spoke about the growing online proliferation of child sexual abuse images, of which the most explicit and extreme images depicting sexual assault against children involve bestiality.
Having regard for the evidence demonstrating the very strong relationship between violence toward animals and violence towards humans, we believe that adding a bestiality simpliciter as a designated offence is consistent with the underlying objective of the SOIRA and with the existing designation of the two other bestiality offences.
I would like to close by addressing one last point, which was raised during the study of Bill C-84. Some committee members and witnesses feel that this bill does not go far enough and that a comprehensive reform of the animal cruelty regime is overdue in Canada.
As the minister mentioned in his testimony before the committee, our government remains open to dialogue and discussion as to the best way to address these vast and complex issues.
That said, we are equally mindful of testimony received at the committee on the importance of moving these reforms forward as soon as possible, particularly because they are designed to close a gap in the law and enhance protections for the most vulnerable members of society. Moreover, it is very important to keep in mind that Bill C-84 is a targeted response to two specific issues that enjoy widespread support from all the key stakeholders in this area of the law. Those stakeholders submitted a letter to the Minister of Justice. Ten of the most important stakeholders, from agriculture to hunting to veterinary care, all support the aspects of this bill.
Bill C-84 is a meaningful and much-needed step forward. We are confident that we can move this critical piece of legislation ahead today and in so doing come one step closer to enhancing protections for the most vulnerable members in our society. On that basis, I would urge all members to support the swift passage of this important piece of legislation, Bill C-84.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is right. Bill C-84 is a critical piece of legislation, and I am glad he focused on three substantive amendments that were passed in committee unanimously upon hearing from various witnesses. That is committee work as it should be. I am pleased that the government supported my amendment so that all individuals convicted of bestiality would be required to register with the national sex offender registry. That is going to keep children, women and animals safe.
The one criticism I have, however, is that it has taken the government almost three years since the D.L.W. decision to close the gap in terms of the narrow interpretation the court has taken in terms of the definition of “bestiality”. Why did the government wait so long to pass a relatively straightforward piece of legislation that is so critical?
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his work on the committee and for his role as vice-chair.
The amendment proposed by the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, which I noted in my opening remarks, was critical in terms of having the sex offender registry include, for the first time, bestiality simpliciter offences and that such offenders be registered in the same registry we have for other types of sexual assault not involving animals. That was a critical amendment, and that was committee work at its finest. There is agreement on that.
With respect to the point about the time taken, there was private member's legislation in the first year of our government's mandate. That legislation received a considerable amount of support but not enough to get it across the finish line. Our government took lessons from that. We went back to stakeholders. We heard from stakeholders about what was needed and gathered consensus where consensus could be found. There were 10 different important stakeholder groups, including veterinary groups, hunting groups and agriculture groups. They came forward and said that it was something they support, and we moved forward on that basis. In the interim, there are other provisions that arise in the Criminal Code that can address some of the lacuna the member opposite pointed out. Those are the charges that currently exist for sexual interference, sexual exploitation, corrupting children and indecent acts.
In the interim, prior to the advent of this bill, all those provisions have remained in force and continue to remain in force to address the important issue that both the member opposite and I share, which is an important issue to address.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that the parliamentary secretary mentioned the private member's bill brought forward by the member for Beaches—East York, Bill C-246. The government did not get behind that bill, which was a much more comprehensive review of animal cruelty laws. It would have provided us with all the things in Bill C-84, essentially, plus a lot more that we really need to address, including the change from considering animals under the property sections of the Criminal Code to establishing a separate section of the Criminal Code for offences against animals.
I am wondering why the government did not support that private member's bill.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke that the important aspect of the private member's bill initiated by the member for Beaches—East York is that it started an important debate that needed to take place in this chamber. I will readily admit, as I am sure most parliamentarians would, that we learned a lot, in the process of going from that bill to where we are with Bill C-84, about the need to update and improve our animal protection laws and to find consensus where consensus can be found.
The difference between the private member's bill and the bill we have before us is that no fewer than 10 different stakeholders support the current bill. They include the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Chicken Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Pork Council, the Egg Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers, the Turkey Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Bison Association, the Canada Mink Breeders Association, the Canadian Sheep Federation and the Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council. It is an exhaustive list.
What is important is that it demonstrates what can be done to promote the same objective the member opposite and I share, which is promoting animal protection and ending animal cruelty when consensus can be found. We as parliamentarians have the responsibility to do that and to move forward on the best basis we can.
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, as the member has mentioned, I have some animal rights champions in my riding, such as Denise Paulin, Natalie Paulin, Emily Regier and Maureen Leblanc. Countless people are championing the issues here. They see the reality that Bill C-84 is actually a missed opportunity.
I would like to hear the member talk about some of the comprehensive things on which we could move forward but have not, such as addressing the issue of basic living standards for animals and tethering laws. We could have put those in Bill C-84, but we missed the mark.
We keep hearing that the bill is a first step, but we have had many first steps that the government has voted down in the past. We have momentum now. I would like to hear why we are addressing not only the issue of bestiality but also basic standards of care and housing and tethering.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.
Mr. Speaker, the question being raised by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is important. I have multiple responses.
First, let us look at what is being addressed here. We are providing a concerted response to a Supreme Court decision that, incredibly, failed to convict an individual who committed an act of bestiality using his stepdaughter and his dog. He was let off because penetration was not involved. The judges in that case, which was held just down the road in the Supreme Court, said that there was a problem in the law, because it requires penetration.
We have sought to remedy that through legislation. This is important not only for that little girl but for all the little girls and boys like her who might be subjected to anything like this as well for all the animals that will continue to be subjected to things like this.
More importantly, as I indicated in my evidence at the outset, we know that people who commit bestiality offences go on to do that with other children and potentially with women. We are nipping this in the bud.
What is also important, although it has not been the subject of much debate thus far, is that the bill also targets the important issue of animal fighting and all that goes along with animal fighting: the people who engage in it, the people who bet on it and the people who run arenas. This is a harbinger of other criminal activity, illegal organized crime activity. By targeting this, we are addressing the broader ill in society of organized crime.
These are important points, but they are a start. This legislation is a starting point, not a finishing point.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, what I thought was interesting in my colleague's speech was that he made a good number of comments regarding the number of amendments that were introduced and ultimately accepted, and in ln looking at those amendments, we see they were based on consensus. Political parties worked together, which makes this government quite different from the previous one, in that we are seeing legislation going into committee and then coming out of committee healthier because there is a higher sense of co-operation.
We hear a great deal about the issue of animal safety and protection, and there are advocates in all regions of the country. There seems to be a great deal of interest in this issue. Maybe my colleague could pick up on the fact that this is a good starting point, at least in part, and that there are many other things we can continue to do to try to improve the situation.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to underscore again the three amendments that were proposed. One is the addition of bestiality simpliciter; second is the addition of persons who are convicted of bestiality to the sex offender registry, and last was this prohibition order. This is important because it dovetails with some of the comments raised by members on the other side of the aisle, who were asking what we are doing to address the concerns of advocates in the area of animal cruelty.
Animal cruelty advocates have said to us that there is no basis upon which somebody who has been convicted of bestiality should be permitted to own a dog, cat, etc. going forward. The prohibition order amendment proposed at committee and accepted by government members would allow for a prohibition order to be attached in order to prevent exactly that. It would prevent it for a short period of time, or even for a lifetime if it is required in the circumstances. That is committee work at its very finest, because it is non-partisan, and animal cruelty should not be a partisan matter.
To refer back further to what was discussed earlier in the context of this debate, sometimes bills that are crafted and do not have widespread consensus can devolve into partisan battles. That is not what we are seeking to do here; we are trying to find consensus by empowering committees to do their work by picking up amendments that have wide consensus and that animal advocates right around this country want us to pursue. These three amendments are part of that, and the two main aspects of this bill focus in on it.
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
Before we resume debate, I will let the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton know that we will be somewhat shy of the 20 minutes he would normally have for his speech when we need to interrupt at 2 p.m. for Statements by Members. If he wishes the remaining time to fill out his 20 minutes, that will happen at a later time today.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code, as amended, with respect to bestiality and animal fighting. Let me say that I, along with all my colleagues on this side of the House, fully support this critical piece of legislation.
There are two main components to Bill C-84. The first is with respect to bestiality; more specifically, it is a direct response to the Supreme Court's D.L.W. decision. In D.L.W., the Supreme Court interpreted section 160 of the Criminal Code, which is the section that prohibits bestiality. In the decision written by Justice Cromwell, the court decided that in the absence of a statutory definition, bestiality should be interpreted only in those circumstances where the act involving the animal involved penetration. What this legislation does is clarify the law by providing for a statutory definition whereby any activity with an animal for a sexual purpose would be captured by section 160 of the Criminal Code, closing a very critical gap.
The second aspect of this legislation is to strengthen laws around animal fighting. I know the parliamentary secretary did discuss the amendments at committee in some detail, but I have in the last number of weeks been quite critical of my Liberal colleagues on the justice committee with respect to their handling of the SNC-Lavalin scandal and I stand by those criticisms. That said, in the normal course we are a committee that has often worked collaboratively. We have been able to put aside partisan differences to find common ground. That is precisely what happened.
We heard from witnesses who put forward ideas around how Bill C-84 could be strengthened, and three substantive amendments were passed at committee unanimously. I want to acknowledge the good work of our chair, the hon. member for Mount Royal, who from day one has set the tone that has enabled our committee to more often than not be one of the more productive parliamentary committees.
With respect to the first part of the bill, namely around section 160 and in terms of providing a statutory definition for bestiality, this is something that I fully support. I think there is widespread consensus to support this statutory amendment, but I will go back to the point that I raised when I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice a question, namely that I cannot understand what took the government so long to act.
The D.L.W. decision was rendered in June 2016. It is now March 2019. What that means is that if this legislation moves forward as quickly as possible, it will be essentially three years in which this gap in the law existed. Why did it take three years? The fact is that the Supreme Court expressly invited Parliament to introduce legislation to provide for a statutory definition. There is as close to universal consensus as we are ever going to find around the need to provide for a statutory definition.
The type of amendment that would be required to incorporate a statutory definition into section 160 of the Criminal Code is, quite frankly, a relatively straightforward one. Because the government dragged its feet and dragged its feet some more, my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, saw fit to introduce a private member's bill to close the gap established from the D.L.W. decision, Bill C-388. That bill would provide for a statutory definition. The statutory definition provided in her bill states, “In this section, 'bestiality' means any contact by a person, for a sexual purpose, with an animal.”
That is pretty straightforward. We then turn to Bill C-84, which the government introduced one year after the member for Calgary Nose Hill introduced Bill C-388. The definition provided for in the government's bill states, “In this section, 'bestiality' means any contact, for a sexual purpose, with an animal.”
There we have it. Word for word, it was copied and pasted from the private member's bill of the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, except that the government waited one year to do it and almost three years after the D.L.W. decision was rendered.
When I asked the parliamentary secretary the reason for the delay, the parliamentary secretary noted that the government had undertaken various consultations with a wide range of stakeholder groups. That is true and that is right, but that was with respect to the animal fighting and animal cruelty provisions of Bill C-84.
It was important that those consultations took place. The aspects of Bill C-84 that deal with animal cruelty and animal fighting are sensible. They do not interfere with traditional hunting, angling or trapping, and there was widespread stakeholder support. However, those consultations had absolutely nothing to do with closing the gap in section 160 of the Criminal Code with respect to bestiality. The notion that somehow there was the need for consultation is simply not the case. It is simply not true in terms of closing this gap. Quite frankly, that argument does not hold water. The bottom line is there is simply no excuse for the delay.
I would speak to the seriousness of the delay from the standpoint of the evidence that came before our committee with respect to bestiality. In that regard, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection carried out a study of 192 cases over a five-year period from Cybertip, which the centre operates and which is the leading national tipline for online sexual activity in Canada. Of the 192 cases that the centre studied with respect to bestiality, a full 80% of those cases did not involve penetration.
That underscores the degree to which there is a gap in the legislation. As of today, since June of 2016, individuals who commit vile and despicable acts involving animals that fall short of penetration cannot be charged under section 160 of the Criminal Code. Again, when 80% of the cases, at least based on a review of 192 cases, did not involve penetration, I say that is a pretty serious issue that needs to be addressed and needs to be addressed as quickly as possible, which is something that the government has simply not done.
With respect to some of the amendments at committee, there were two that related to bestiality.
The first would provide a judge with the discretion to impose a prohibition order upon conviction that would prevent someone convicted of bestiality from being in the same premises or having access to an animal for a period of time that the judge deems appropriate, and with respect to repeat offenders, namely those who are convicted of a second or subsequent bestiality offence, for a minimum of five years.
The second amendment that was passed was an amendment that I brought forward. It would ensure that anyone convicted of a bestiality offence would be required to register with the national sex offender registry. Right now, anyone convicted of compelling the commission of bestiality under subsection 160(2), as well as anyone convicted under subsection 160(3), namely bestiality in the presence of a child, would be required to register with the national sex offender registry but all other offenders would not. As a result of my amendment, this legislation would close that gap.
It is an important step to keep children, women and animals safe because, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice laid out in some detail, there is a very clear connection between bestiality and violence against women and children. It is often part of a pattern involving some of the worst sexual crimes imaginable. Indeed, bestiality has been equated to sadism in terms of the impact that it can have on its victims.
In terms of looking at the severity of what we are talking about and how serious and how dangerous individuals who commit bestiality offences are, one need only look at D.L.W. himself. This is an individual who over a 10-year period sexually abused his two stepdaughters on a daily basis. The pattern of sexual abuse in that case escalated as time went on to the point that he committed bestiality against one of the stepdaughters involving the family dog. It is important to read into the record what the trial judge said of D.L.W. in terms of capturing the level of depravity that we are talking about here.
The trial judge in his reasons for sentence said:
I have been a judge for almost 40 years. This offender is one of the most evil men that I have encountered during my long tenure on the Bench. The man is evil incarnate. He is a monster. It is said that the devil can cite scripture for his own use. That is certainly the case here. With a warped vivid imagination and using passages from the Bible to justify his actions, D.L.W., in a most vile manner, sexually abused two of his stepchildren on a daily basis for over a decade.
Those are the types of offenders that we are talking about, and on that basis it is important that all individuals convicted of bestiality have to register with the national sex offender registry. I am glad that the government has lent its support in that regard.
Moving on to the second aspect of Bill C-84, there are important measures to strengthen laws around animal cruelty and animal fighting. We know that animal fighting is widespread and often under-reported. There are clear links between gangs and organized crime. There is an enormous amount of money that can be involved. We heard evidence before the justice committee that one dogfight can involve as much as $200,000. When there are four or five fights, a million dollars could change hands and get into the hands of organized crime groups.
The legislation would make some practical amendments to the Criminal Code to give law enforcement better tools to be able to crack down on animal fighting and eliminate an important funding source for organized criminal elements. In that regard, Bill C-84 would make a few amendments to the animal fighting sections of the Criminal Code. First, again in respect to subsection 445.1(1), at present that subsection prohibits anyone from encouraging, aiding or assisting in fighting or baiting animals. What that section does not capture at present is activities involved in training, transporting or breeding animals for animal fighting purposes.
I see my time is up, so I will just carry on after question period.
The Speaker Geoff Regan
The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton will have three minutes remaining in his speech following question period.
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting), not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the Bill; and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
The Speaker Geoff Regan
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, frankly, this is a bill that the government should have dealt with on the front end of this Parliament. There has been a lot of bipartisan support for this bill. I am just really disappointed that the government had to invoke time allocation, when I think there has been discussion among all parties with a view to having this bill pass expeditiously.
The government is going to allow a speaker, and other opposition parties were not going to have a speaker, and I do not understand why we are doing this. The government could have just put no speakers up. This is one of those situations where I know we have stakeholders in Ottawa who are watching this.
The government could have just managed this situation so much better. If one is going to build trust in this place, putting forward time allocation for something like this just seems a little heavy-handed and ridiculous. Why did the government have to quash bipartisan support for a bill that was probably just going to go on a voice vote anyway today?
Bill C-84—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders
LaSalle—Émard—Verdun Québec
Liberal
David Lametti LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her engagement on this issue in her private member's bill, Bill C-388, which took up one of the central issues of this bill.
It is unfortunate that we are going to time allocation. I cannot speak to the negotiations that went on, but I can say that we would like to see this bill through. As the hon. member has pointed out, there is a great deal of support on all sides of the House for this bill. The work that was done in committee was exemplary in terms of bringing forward amendments that were accepted, and we feel this bill needs to move forward, so we are using time allocation because we have to.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, the justice minister just stated something that is factually not true. This is the 70th time in this Parliament that the Liberals have used time allocation and closure, and he is saying that they are using it because they need to. The point is that they absolutely did not need to use the sledgehammer.
The government seems completely unwilling to work with opposition parties on anything, even on a bill that has a fairly broad level of consensus. I agree with the member for Calgary Nose Hill that it probably would have passed on a voice vote. Instead of bringing it to the House and working it through, it imposed closure for the 70th time.
This is in complete disregard for all the commitments I remember from back in 2015 when the Prime Minister said things would be different. He said this government would approach Parliament in a co-operative way and make sure parliamentarians can work together. Instead, we have had closure or time allocation 70 times. It is completely unacceptable and completely unnecessary.
Why is the government imposing closure on this Parliament for the 70th time?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to negotiations that went on with this bill or any other bill. That is not one of my functions in this House. What I can say is that there is a wide degree of support for it, not just in this House but also across Canada. We have managed to unify the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the Chicken Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Pork Council, the Egg Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers, the Turkey Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Bison Association, the Canada Mink Breeders Association and the Canadian Sheep Federation.
My name gets tagged on a lot of social media, with people asking where this bill is, why it is not happening and why the opposition is stalling. I have to respond to that in some personal way. We are moving forward with this bill because it is something that has a great deal of support, and we intend to get it through.
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate that the Minister of Justice has not been the Minister of Justice throughout this Parliament, so he is taking on some legislation he had no role in crafting. However, he is the representative of the government today, and he needs to stand and answer and be accountable to the people and their representatives.
Why such a different approach? On this piece of legislation, we have a stand-alone piece of legislation that has gone through committee process and whatnot, and through debate, yet shamefully, in Bill C-74, an omnibus piece of legislation, the Liberals pushed through a provision for deferred prosecution agreements. They did not have a single witness from the academic community or bar association come for a thorough discussion about that particular regime, which is unlike any that has been used in the Criminal Code before. Why did they do that while giving a stand-alone bill to this, when they could easily have taken that DPA section from division 20 of Bill C-74 and put it in Bill C-75, another piece of omnibus legislation? Why is there such a mismatch in how they present to this place and with where their priorities are?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, we felt these two issues were fairly well agreed upon on all sides of this House, therefore we could get it through. We also felt that the committee work that would be done on this, specifically in front of the justice committee, would build a better bill. That is precisely what happened. The three recommendations made by the justice committee helped a great deal to improve the bill.
With respect to this particular bill, which is what we are talking about today, we felt this was the best way to move forward.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange to hear what is coming from the Minister of Justice today.
I am one of those people who has wanted to speak to this bill. I have some things to say about its limitations and its failure in terms of being a missed opportunity to do a more comprehensive reform.
That said, I have been waiting to speak for a month. I have been waiting for the government to bring this bill forward. We have a limited number of people who want to speak. We are prepared to move forward with it. We have always been prepared to move forward.
He is the Minister of Justice. It is your bill now, and your answers do not make a lot of sense to me. Why are you even wasting this half-hour and the time it takes to vote? We probably could have finished dealing with this bill in this time.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
I just want to remind the hon. members to speak through the Speaker, not to the Speaker.
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will respond to part of the question. Certainly my commitment as Minister of Justice, moving forward, is to undertake a more comprehensive review of the question of animal rights more generally. I have done that publicly now on a number of occasions, both in front of the committee and in front of a round table hosted by my colleague, the member for Parkdale—High Park, with a number of leading animal rights advocates in Toronto.
I understand the importance, and I recognize, as the member has intimated, that this is a rather narrow bill. It is very narrow in scope. We need to do a lot more.
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice is quite right that there is widespread consensus, and he is also right that a lot of good work was done at committee.
However, I have to say I was a little surprised by his assertion that there are stakeholders out there who are alleging that it is the opposition that is holding up or stalling the bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is the government that has been holding up this bill. It is why the D.L.W. decision was issued in June 2016. It is now May 2019, and the government has still not responded. It is why the member for Calgary Nose Hill felt the need to introduce a private member's bill more than a year ago, a private member's bill that the government essentially copied and pasted into this legislation.
What was the minister talking about?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his work on the committee. It brought valuable improvements to the bill, and I certainly enjoy my interactions with the hon. member, both in the House and at committee.
It is true that we incorporated a private member's bill from the member for Calgary Nose Hill. I thanked her for that contribution previously in answer to her question. However, we added another important element to the bill, which was animal fighting. That was also something we felt we could target quite clearly, and for which there was a great deal of support. It would also help us indirectly combat organized crime, which is often part of the animal fighting context.
I would say to the hon. member that we are doing our best to get this through the House as best we can, given the negotiations that happened. As I have just said, I am not privy to those negotiations. We feel this is the best way to move forward to get this done.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely bizarre that we have this motion before us today.
We have heard from all sides of this House that there is support for this bill, yet instead of allowing some time for people to express their opinions on it, the government has taken a sledgehammer to it. Certainly the previous government used time allocation on occasion, but it was when there was no consensus.
Again, I would like the minister to tell us why Liberals feel they need to use a sledgehammer, when the parties just wanted an opportunity to put up a speaker and were willing to let this bill move forward.
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, we would like to get this bill through this Parliament because a number of Canadians are waiting for it. I agree with the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton that this is a long-overdue response to the D.L.W. decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. I share that sentiment completely. Therefore, we are moving to get the debate done. We know that there is a high degree of support.
MPs have had a great deal of time in first reading, second reading and committee work to have an impact on this bill. They have had a positive impact on this bill. It is time to move on.
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will comment not on the substance of the bill but on the sense of urgency. As members know, a time allocation motion is supposed to be an exceptional and justifiable measure, but I am having a hard time seeing how it is justified now.
Why is there time allocation for this?
Considering the government's meagre legislative agenda, is the goal to adjourn the House on June 1?
David Lametti Liberal LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
I do not know the answer to his question. As I said, I am not privy to party leaders' negotiations about time allocation and procedures.
Adopting this bill is one of our government's priorities. It is important to people across Canada. Animals will be better off because of this bill.
This is a very specific bill, and we have reached consensus on both those aspects. The nearly unanimous support of the House indicates that we will be able to go ahead with this.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words, and 511 days ago, the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill introduced her private member's bill, Bill C-388. It addressed what should have been the subject to be discussed before this House today. The government says that this is a priority for it and, while there is a Supreme Court decision that is awaiting its answer, it has dragged its feet on what has been the product of hard work and consensus by all parties at committee.
It is very disappointing to stakeholders and very disappointing for members, intervenors and witnesses that time allocation has been moved on this issue that is very important. The government has had ample opportunity to advance it. Why now is it slamming the door on open debate in this place?
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.
Bill C-84—Time Allocation MotionCriminal CodeGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
In my opinion the nays have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The House resumed from March 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting), be read the third time and passed.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
I wish to inform the House that because of proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by another 30 minutes, for a total of 37 minutes.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr. Speaker, given the debate we just had on time allocation, I want to assure the House that I am very pleased to get up today to speak to Bill C-84. However, I am disappointed not to be speaking to a broader bill that could have simply been called “an act to amend the Criminal Code, animal cruelty”, because what we really needed was a broad review of the animal cruelty legislation and not a bill just narrowly focused on bestiality and animal fighting. Instead of that broader review, the government introduced a narrow and weak bill, which, fortunately, the justice committee strengthened with amendments. I will return to those in a moment.
Even though the Liberal government has missed the larger opportunity to modify animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code as a whole, some legislation on animal cruelty is long overdue. By my count, since 1999, there have been 14 failed attempts to amend Canada's animal cruelty laws. Some would argue that we have seen no significant changes in animal cruelty laws since the 1950s. I have to say that I am not sure that we would have seen the government introduce any legislation on animal cruelty at all if it had not been for the Supreme Court decision in R. v. D.L.W., in 2016, which pointed out the problems with the narrow definition of bestiality in the existing Criminal Code provisions.
My skepticism of the will of the Liberals to act was fuelled when the Liberals used their majority to defeat their own backbencher's private member's bill, Bill C-246, from the member for Beaches—East York,, entitled the modernizing animal protections act. That was the kind of broad look at the changes we needed and that this government bill should have brought forward. Bill C-246 would have provided for much more comprehensive reform than we have in the bill before us today, and New Democrats supported that bill when it came before the House, in contrast to the Liberals.
Bill C-246 would have increased sentences for repeat animal abusers, including creating the ability to have a lifetime ban, after a second conviction, on any ownership of animals. However, that is not in the bill we are dealing with today, and I am disappointed that it is not there.
As well, Bill C-246 proposed to deal with a wide range of acts beyond the Criminal Code that actually deal with the way we treat animals, including the Fisheries Act, the Textile Labelling Act, the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
I just want to interrupt the hon. member for a moment.
The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has a speech that I am trying to hear but cannot because of the grumbling or the mumbling. It is not loud, and I am sure that members do not even realize that their talk is drowning him out. However, I want to remind hon. members that someone is giving a speech, and we should all listen and hear what he has to say.
The hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr. Speaker, let me just pick up again on Bill C-246, the Liberal backbench bill that the government defeated. It would have also dealt with the things that are in this government bill. We could have done what is in this bill before us, and more, by passing that private member's bill.
Perhaps most importantly, Bill C-246 would have moved offences against animals out of the property section of the Criminal Code and into a new section dedicated to offences against animals. This would not only have been an important legal reform; I think it would also be a very important symbol of our need as humans to rethink our place in the natural universe and to see ourselves as part of the web of nature on which we depend for our very survival, rather than seeing the Earth and all of its beings as simply property for us to use and discard when we are done.
I have spent a lot of time on this private member's bill because it puts the much narrower government bill in front of us into a proper context. The fact that the government used its majority to defeat a more comprehensive reform of animal cruelty legislation tempers the credit the government should get for bringing forward this bill today.
At this point, I also want to give credit to the Conservative member for Calgary Nose Hill, who pushed the government to act on the very narrow definition that the Supreme Court found by introducing her own private member's bill, Bill C-388, in order to make sure that the government was forced to bring forward its own bill instead of having to deal with hers.
The member for Calgary Nose Hill did acknowledge some concerns in her caucus that attempting to modernize and strengthen animal cruelty provisions might affect farmers and hunters. I also want to acknowledge concerns in indigenous communities that reforms of animal cruelty legislation should not infringe on aboriginal rights and traditional hunting practices.
However, like the member for Calgary Nose Hill, I believe we can update animal cruelty legislation and at the same time avoid unintended impacts on farmers and hunters and unintended consequences with regard to aboriginal rights.
Perhaps I should mention that I am not a hunter, nor have I eaten meat for more than 35 years. I am a proud dog owner, although I resisted the temptation today to wear a t-shirt with a picture of my poodle on it under my jacket. I should also say that my support for this bill will keep peace at home, as my partner is a very passionate advocate for animal rights.
In fact, New Democrats in this House have consistently advocated reform of animal cruelty laws. The member for Port Moody—Coquitlam has proposed his private member's bill, Bill C-380, which would have banned the importation of shark fins. He has been working very hard on the Senate bill, Bill S-238, which is a parallel bill, to make sure that we pass that bill before the House rises to help end the cruel practice of shark finning.
Both the member for Vancouver East and the member for New Westminster—Burnaby have introduced motions to ban the import of products containing dog and cat fur. Former Toronto NDP MP Peggy Nash had a private member's bill, Bill C-232, to strengthen animal cruelty laws, as did former NDP Quebec MP Isabelle Morin, so this is not a new cause for us to take up. This is something we have been fighting for for many years in this House.
At the justice committee, the member for Beaches—East York moved an amendment to Bill C-84, which was adopted unanimously and which broadened the government's too-narrow bill, and three very important provisions were added to the bill in committee.
The first of those allows a prohibition order on animal ownership for a certain period, as determined by a judge. The second makes it an offence to violate an order prohibiting animal ownership, meaning that someone could actually be prosecuted for violating that order of prohibition. The third allows restitution orders to compel those convicted to pay for the care of animals injured. Those were quite important aspects from his own private member's bill on which the member got consensus to bring into the bill before us today.
A separate amendment was also adopted to add bestiality to the list of offences covered in the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. As the member for St. Albert—Edmonton very clearly pointed out, the reason for doing this is that abuse of animals is often an indicator of other forms of abuse, in particular of child abuse. This becomes information that is very useful to the police. I thank him for bringing forward that amendment to this bill.
Those two amendments, one with three provisions and one with one provision, added important aspects to Bill C-84, even though it remains, as I said before, less than the comprehensive reform of animal cruelty legislation that I would like to see before the House.
Still, Bill C-84 does redefine bestiality more broadly than the court decision and it does prohibit a broader range of activities associated with animal fighting, so I and my fellow New Democrats are supporting this bill.
I would have to say personally that even if it only contained the provisions banning activities associated with animal fighting, I would support this bill. It is important to ban promoting, arranging and profiting from animal fighting. It is important to ban breeding, training or transporting animals to fight and it is important to ban keeping any arena for the purpose of animal fighting. I think these are very important steps.
I am not going to go on for a long time, despite the accusations of the government that the reason that we wanted to speak was to delay the bill. I am not even going to use all my time today. I want to conclude by saying that the reason I wanted to speak is to bring our attention to the fact that there is still a lot of work to do on animal cruelty after we pass Bill C-84.
We are missing the opportunity for that comprehensive reform that I have been talking about. In particular, I believe this bill should have included basic standards of care and housing for animals. It could also have included restrictions on tethering animals, in particular dogs, a practice that, since it is unregulated, can be a severe threat to the health and safety of dogs. Of course, tethered dogs are much more likely to bite, and specifically to bite children. In fact, according to the Montreal SPCA, tethered dogs are three times more likely to bite and five times more likely to bite children.
Again, after Bill C-84 passes, there is much more work to do beyond fixing the additional provisions of the Criminal Code that I mentioned earlier. Most important, of course, is the work that needs to be done on protecting endangered species and the habitat that they depend on. This past week, we saw the release of an alarming report from the United Nations intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity. This report documents the unprecedented and accelerating rates of species' extinction at rates never before seen in human history. The report warns that more than one million animal and plant species are facing extinction within the next few decades as a result of human activity.
What we do need now, and I mean right now, are bold measures to protect and preserve the ecosystems that the endangered plants and animals depend on. Since I arrived in this House eight years ago, I have been an advocate for emergency action to protect the southern resident killer whales, as we are at the brink of losing a species, each of whose name is individually known. Instead of a bold and urgent recovery plan for the orcas that would mobilize large-scale habitat restoration where appropriate and put millions of hatchery chinook in the water, this work is being left to volunteers, and they have undertaken this work without any government support. Instead of support, we have a timid recovery plan that tries to manage declining stocks of chinook by relying on fishing restrictions when everybody knows that what we actually need—not just the whales, but all of us—is more fish in the water.
In conclusion, while passing Bill C-84 is an important step forward in animal protection, it is only a first step in a process that will require us to re-examine our place in the natural world.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting), be read the third time and passed.
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member across the way for his passion on this topic.
I have recently been in touch with the Guelph Humane Society, which is really concerned about delays in this legislation coming forth. One point they made was that 87% of cases involving bestiality also involve child pornography, sexual interference with a child and online luring of children in terms of sexual assault, so this bill actually protects children as well as animals.
Could the member maybe expand on that and comment on how humane societies play an important role in this legislation as well?
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr. Speaker, since the member made reference to delay, something I tried to stay away from in my speech, I will go ahead now and say that the government only in its fourth year got to this legislation. Every time we talk about delay, the implication is that somehow the opposition side has been delaying things. It is the government that has been delaying. It is the government that has been negligent in getting the bill before us. All the while, it has been pushing on what we would call an open door. We have been willing to co-operate. There is always a time for speakers. There is always a certain amount of time we should give to that debate. Nobody has been holding up this bill.
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to give credit to the many advocacy groups that have paved the way for this bill, such as Animal Justice and the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. Also, I want to give a shout-out to my legislative manager, Bari Miller, who is a militant vegan who always pushes animal rights on me. I give credit to her where credit is due.
My colleague opposite talked about some of the concerns raised in debate. Since I hope this bill will be going to the other place quickly, could he speak to some of the stuff that came up in debate specifically around this not affecting any sort of artificial insemination process used in animal husbandry and the fact that this bill would not preclude things like the Calgary Stampede from continuing?
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for her advocacy on this issue. What I said in my speech I really think is a credit to her. She has been the leader in pointing out in this House that there is no necessary connection between improving animal protection and the way we treat animals and some of the fears that have been stirred up by the other side that this would somehow affect aboriginal rights or the rights of farmers to farm or that it would do away with the Calgary Stampede. None of those would be the case. None of those would ever have to be the case.
What the bill is aimed at are particularly egregious abuses of animals in our society. For me, the worst is animal fighting. We do not have good statistics on animal fighting, but we all know that it goes on. We do not have the proper tools to attack those abusive practices. This is not aimed at farmers. It is not aimed at exhibitions. It is not aimed at aboriginal people.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, in their questioning, the NDP and the Conservatives talked a lot about the time crunch. It is important to recognize that the government, like Canadians and like members opposite, supports the legislation. It seems that everyone supports the legislation. However, just because everyone supports it does not necessarily mean that there is not mischievous behaviour. For example, today the NDP tried to prevent the bill from being debated by moving a motion. Had that motion been debated, we would not be dealing with Bill C-84 today.
It is a bit disingenuous to say that it is the government that is trying to hold back the legislation. I believe that there is fairly solid support both inside the House and outside the House, and I too would like to applaud all those advocates over the years who have brought us to this point.
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to thank the member for that question, because when it comes to disingenuous, he is the poster boy for disingenuous. If we looked in a dictionary, we would find his picture under the word “disingenuous”. Nobody did anything today, or any other day, on the opposition side to delay this bill. The only thing I agree with in his question is the credit he gave, which I neglected to give adequately, to the animal rights activists who also pushed the government to move the bill forward.
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, what the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke said is very important to remember. When the member for Vancouver East stood to move that motion, we put no speakers up. We were interested in going straight to a vote. I just want to put the facts straight before the House.
In my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, we had a dreadful case of animal cruelty last year. I acknowledge that changing the law, by itself, would not solve animal cruelty. It would be one important tool, but we need a variety of measures.
Shortly after the government defeated its own Liberal member's bill, Bill C-246, the then justice minister made a promise before the media that her government would be looking at the whole range of tools in the tool kit to see if it could revisit this issue. It dragged on through 2016, 2017 and 2018, and here we are finally in 2019.
Can my colleague add some comments on how the government has moved at such a glacial pace on such low-hanging fruit as Bill C-84?
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his work on this issue. I also thank him for his work on reconciliation in his community over some things that happened around animal cruelty issues.
When we talk about a glacial pace, let me just say this. We voted on the private member's bill put forward by the member for Beaches—East York on October 5, 2016. Therefore, if somebody is worried about how fast or how slow we have gone, we could have finished with this issue in a much better bill than the one before us today had the government not killed its own backbench private member's bill.
It is not a question of somebody delaying this legislation except for government members.
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, it constantly amazes me the number of times everyone in this place agrees on something. Everyone in this place agrees this bill is important to move forward to the Senate as quickly as possible, yet we still manage to find ways to partisan the argument with one another for no apparent reason—
An hon. member
Why are you standing up? You're doing it right now, delaying it.
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
No, I am not. I want to make that clear. I am casting blame in every direction.
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
It is jaw-dropping.
Let us come back to the bill, Mr. Speaker. We have a bill right now with which everyone agrees. We have—
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
Order, please. I would suggest that the hon. member perhaps direct his speech in the direction of the Chair.
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to direct my speech toward you.
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
That would be great. It sometimes happens when a speech gets directed across the aisle. It is one of the reasons that convention seems to work in avoiding some of this extra noise and some of the commentary that ensues from this kind of approach.
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, right now, this is something to which we can all agree. Animal cruelty laws in Canada need to be vastly improved. We have laws that were adopted in the 1890s, slightly amended in the 1950s and they have unfortunately not been radically revamped in the world we live in today where most of us recognize that animals should not be treated as pure property. Animals are sentient beings. Animals can suffer. Most animals have the ability to know whether they are feeling pain. Today, our animal cruelty laws are, unfortunately, many years behind the times.
I want to salute the many groups that advocate for animal welfare, which helped in moving this legislation forward. I also want to congratulate those many other groups that work with animals, ranging from agriculture to people who deal with animals in other ways, including fishers and anglers. They have worked to ensure we have legislation that is satisfactory to virtually everyone. That is possible to do, with further animal cruelty legislation.
It is not true to believe that we can never find more compelling reasons to improve animal welfare because nobody will agree. People can agree, if we all come together. I strongly back the request of my colleague from Beaches—East York at our committee to look for an all-party parliamentary committee, probably not in this mandate but in a future mandate, to ensure we can all work with the many interest groups out there to advance animal cruelty legislation in Canada.
This is a specific bill that deals with several small issues. We made changes at the justice committee to broaden the scope of the bill slightly. As initially drafted, Bill C-84 defined bestiality. It is probably something that most of us never thought we would be talking about in this place, but I will do that.
A Supreme Court judgment in R. v. D.L.W. required legislative action. In R. v. D.L.W., the Supreme Court ruled that penetration was a necessary part of the definition of bestiality in the Criminal Code. It does not mean that there were not other offences in the Criminal Code that could deal with elements of bestiality short of penetration. However, the Court placed the onus on us in the House of Commons and on the people in the other place to revise the definition of bestiality in the Criminal Code, and we are proceeding to do that.
A number of people have said that the Supreme Court erred in its judgment. I do not agree that the Supreme Court erred. We disagree with the conclusions of the Supreme Court judgment, but that does not mean it erred in law. We take our law from the British system and in the British system and throughout the Commonwealth, there have been numerous cases where there were rulings that penetration was a necessary element of bestiality. That does not mean that now that the Court has clarified this, we in Parliament cannot change the definition to clarify that bestiality does not require penetration. We are doing that in Bill C-84. When the bill came before the committee, not only did each and every member of the committee agree with the proposed definition in the bill, but so did every group that came before the committee.
We also have expanded the scope of the offence of encouraging, aiding or assisting at the fighting or baiting of animals 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...
We are all aware that causing animals to fight for our own pleasure as human beings, the ability to push animals to hurt one another so some people can sit there and laugh or bet, is entirely cruel, inhumane and should not only abandoned, but people who violate that type of a provision should be punished, and punished severely. Therefore, I am pleased we are expanding the scope of that offence.
The bill would also 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.” We should be extending this not only to people who cause cocks to fight. Anyone who causes any type of animal to fight in an arena should be subject to the penalties of the Criminal Code. I am pleased that the bill would expand those provisions.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights also decided that certain provisions of the act should be amended.
With respect to section 160 of the Criminal Code, which prevents people from possessing or residing with an animal for a period of time, up to a lifetime ban, we wanted to ensure that people convicted under these new sections could be prohibited from owning an animal for up to the rest of their lifetime. Those who have been cruel to an animal once, particularly if they have been cruel in a very flagrant way or cruel a repeated number of times, should not be allowed to own animals.
The committee assigned in the bill the same prohibition and punishment of not being able to own an animal that the existing provisions on animal cruelty in the Criminal Code did. We also added a new subsection, which notes that people who have been convicted under these sections can also be required to pay the person or organization that has to take care of an animal to rehabilitate it. This would pay for the care and damage that they caused.
We also amended subsection 490.011(1) of the code, which defines the designated offences for which a convicted individual would be required to register in the sex offender registry, so that people who commit the offence of bestiality simpliciter will be required to register as a sex offender.
There was a significant amount of debate regarding this issue. Previously, individuals had commented that there was not enough proof linking the offence of bestiality simpliciter to other sex offences. However, our committee decided, based on the scientific evidence we had seen, there was sufficient evidence to require a person to register as a sex offender if he or she committed bestiality simpliciter and was convicted. I am very pleased my colleague's amendment on that score was accepted.
Finally, we repealed subsection 447(3) of the Criminal Code, which provided that “A peace officer who finds cocks in a cockpit or on premises where a cockpit is located shall seize them and take them before a justice who shall order them to be destroyed.” This required each and every cock that was seized to be destroyed no matter its health.
We determined that there was no reason to believe that each and every cock that was found in a fighting area necessarily needed to be destroyed. We were also convinced that provincial legislation on this matter was sufficient enough to deal with any orders that had to be made regarding the destruction of an animal that was so debilitated by fighting and needed to be destroyed.
To come back to my first point, the bill was indeed an example of our being able to find support from all sides. That should be congratulated. It means members were able to rise above partisanship to decide this was good for Canada, good for the animals in Canada, good for the children in Canada and good for all of us. At committee, we were able to work together with respect to unanimously approving amendments.
I am hoping that based on this agreement, we will be able to put partisanship aside and ensure the bill is adopted as swiftly as possible so it can move to the other place and become Canadian law prior to the next election.
A number of people in the House have advanced the cause of promoting the welfare of animals and they all deserve to be applauded, no matter from which side of the House they come. They are doing something truly noble in trying to help protect the very vulnerable animals, which really deserve much more protection than our criminal law and other laws afford them today.
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his work at committee on the bill and for the legal aspect that he brings to the discussion.
He mentioned the effect of this issue on children. The Guelph Humane Society has been working with women in crisis in Guelph. Women in abusive relationships who also have pets need a place to protect their pets while they are taken out of threatening situations. The pets themselves are often abused as well.
Could the member please make the connection between the pets, the children and vulnerable women and how important it is that we move the legislation through the House without any more parliamentary interference?
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, the bill assures us that while there may be other offences in the Criminal Code that people who commit acts of bestiality that do not involve penetration by children, in front of children, around children or involving children could be punished with, now they would indeed be able to also be charged under the bestiality provisions, and that is a step forward. No child should ever be forced to engage in the acts that we have heard about at committee. No child should ever be a viewer of those acts. The bill that we put forward allows us to make sure that they can be charged under the bestiality provisions of the Criminal Code.
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to work with the member on the justice committee. I have a question about one aspect of the bill, which talks about baiting. On a point of clarification, would baiting be just in regard to the act of fighting? I know, for example, that when hunters are conducting a bear hunt, baiting is a common practice. Is that something that the bill would prevent, or is it something that is in the bill just in the aspect of actual fighting animals?
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, it was a great pleasure to serve with the hon. member for Provencher on the justice committee, and he has been sadly missed ever since he moved to another committee.
The definition of baiting was discussed at committee on a number of occasions to make sure that it would not involve, for example, the baiting of fish or anything that would potentially infringe on the rights of people today who use bait to catch a fish.
What we understood, and what was clarified by the justice department, was that baiting is in the context of bear-baiting. That is why we used the word “baiting”. It is from the Middle Ages, from bear-baiting. It would not infringe on practices used in Canada today. The justice officials clarified that.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it would be appropriate to acknowledge not only those inside the chamber, but the many advocacy groups out there. I have received emails from people who want to make sure that I vote for this legislation. It has brought a lot of Canadians together for a wonderful cause. I applaud their efforts in terms of taking some of the credit for what we are debating today and ultimately will be passing.
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the words of my colleague from Winnipeg North. I agree completely. Canadians across the country came together to push Parliament to improve our laws on animal cruelty. Those Canadians, like other Canadians who are passionate about other issues, deserve to be congratulated, and we need to work with them to further advance laws to protect animals. I am hopeful we will do so in the next Parliament.
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
It being 5:52 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
