Justice Committee on Jan. 31st, 2008

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

You need to understand, Senator, that this bill does not go far enough in its attempt to deal with cruelty to animals. Furthermore, you seem unwilling to support the draft legislation proposed by our colleague Mr. Holland. Consequently, I have no further questions for you, since I would only by repeating what others have said. Thank you.

[Senator John Bryden]

Did you want an answer?

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Madame Freeman.

Mr. Calkins. I understand you're going to--

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Split my time with Mr. Petit.

I have one quick question, and if you'll indulge me, Mr. Chair, I'd just like to talk to the senator as one farm boy to another, if that's okay.

I certainly appreciate your bill. With my experience, Senator, as a farm boy and as a cattle farmer, I can see there is one change here. You've actually broadened the scope for which charges can be laid for offences against cattle, which means that where before there was only an indictable offence, it changes it to a hybrid. I know from my time serving in law enforcement that a law enforcement officer only has the ability to either lay the charge or not lay the charge, and the judgment they have therein is usually based on the nature of the penalty and whether the penalty would suit the charge.

What I'm concerned about here is this. I'm wondering, now that the hybrid offence is there for the section dealing specifically with cattle, if you had any representation concerning an increased number of charges for relatively minor offences involving cattle that will result in summary conviction penalties being applied to farmers. From my perspective, some of those cases may appear to be just one more onerous problem for cattle ranchers to overcome. I'm wondering if you could comment on that.

[Senator John Bryden]

I have not had any particular approach saying that is going to cause a problem. I have had the other side of that, perhaps from law enforcement officers. It gives them an opportunity to lay charges that are more fitting to the crime, that is to say, something along the lines of a snare that an animal steps into, a cow or a horse or whatever. That causes unnecessary pain and suffering, but you don't want to put a person in jail for five years for that. On the other hand, it's a maximum of five years. It is up to, and also there is a fine.

The other part of my answer is that if I were going to be even-handed in relation to all the other things in saying how we are going to treat these penalties, then the same thing had to apply to the cattle one that was there.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Senator.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

We'll go to Monsieur Petit.

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

Thank you.

Good day, Senator. I have a brief, two-part question for you. You know as well as I do that when penalties are increased, that is, why sentences are extended or fines increased... As a lawyer, I know that clients turn to us for help defending them because of the high cost involved. Otherwise, they plead guilty on their own, pay the fine and are done with it.

Is it clear in your mind that this bill covers slaughterhouses where animals are killed by a blow to the head, by an electrical charge or by a gunshot? Does it cover slaughterhouses where the throats of chickens are slashed? As you see it, does it also cover the fact that followers of certain religions in Quebec—I am thinking here about halal meat—cut goats with a knife? Are you at all certain that this bill will not be challenged in the Supreme Court? As you know, the Supreme Court is very intent upon upholding rights of all kind. I support your efforts, but I would not want to push through a legislative initiative, just to have the Supreme Court inform us the next day that unfortunately, several provisions cannot be enforced.

When the public is shown a film on television where animals are slaughtered by means of an electrical charge, a bullet or a blow to the head, they are very surprised. I would like to know if you considered this situation when you worked on increasing penalties.

[Senator John Bryden]

First of all, the primary management of animals and slaughterhouses, whether they be for chickens, pigs, hogs, calves, or cows, is done at the provincial level. There is a reason for that, and it is what has caused part of the problem with this other bill. Property and civil rights are a matter of provincial jurisdiction. And the only time the Criminal Code, which is what I'm dealing with, has any business in there is when it acts as an overriding sanction to preserve peace and good government for the citizenry as a whole. The job of handling the regular management of animal husbandry, to use that word, is a provincial jurisdiction, and we have no right to be in there as a federal government doing that, although as you know, there are contracts between them, and so on.

I asked the question specifically of the Justice officials.... They're here, I think, and someone else can ask them. But I asked the Justice officials who were before us before whether there were any constitutional issues in this bill, and their answer was no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Lee, you'll be the last on the list.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I've just had the pleasure of reading and rereading the two principal existing sections of the code. Section 445 deals with injuring or endangering animals that are kept for a lawful purpose. Those animals are just the ones that are kept. Those are the domesticated ones.

The next section of the code, section 446, deals with all animals. There is no restriction that they have to be lawfully kept. So I think there's a misunderstanding out there that the existing sections in the code don't apply to animals that are not domestic. I can see where that confusion might come from, because there are two separate sections, one dealing with causing unnecessary suffering, which applies to all animals, and one dealing with injuring or endangering, which only applies to domesticated and kept animals.

Would you agree with that, Senator?

[Senator John Bryden]

Absolutely.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

Now, concerning this business of reform, almost everybody around the table here would agree, I think, that there is room or need for reform of the code with respect to the animal kingdom, not including humans, and maybe for adding on some other parts of the food chain. I'm not sure, but I think almost everyone here agrees.

Earlier you said you would not support the other private member's bill--the bill of Mr. Hollandfrom the House--in its current form.

[Senator John Bryden]

Yes.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

This is a very hypothetical question, because that bill is unlikely to get to the House or the Senate, but do you think you might be able to support a bill of that nature, were it in a slightly different form, as a reformed package? And would you agree that this legislative area is really in need of reform, as is indicated by the previous government bills that haven't made it all the way through?

[Senator John Bryden]

Mr. Lee, the answer to that is yes. I'm pleased to see you taking the position that indicates there is a need for reform, but an immediate reform is not necessarily a quick fix.

I believe it will take some very careful thinking and some research to get it done. I believe that in that regard, my bill can act as step one. That is, while we're getting it right, this will at least protect the animals today until we're in a position to put the bigger scope around a new bill.

What we need is a new bill.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Who will lead that reform if you've covered off, as you say, 80% of the problem? How many people around here are going to lead a charge on the 20% remaining?

Mr. Dykstra looks as though he's ready to go for it.

[Senator John Bryden]

My answer to that, Mr. Lee, is that if, having taken care of getting the penalties for cruelty to animals right, there is no outcry, there is no significant reason to do what you're suggesting, then one would have to wonder whether there is a real problem.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Oh, I think most people think there is, but that's the public.

Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Thank you very much, Senator, for your testimony today. We appreciate your appearance here.

I'm going to ask the other witnesses just to sit back for one moment. I have some quick committee business to deal with here.

First of all, we have a steering committee report.

[A witness]

Do you want us to vacate the room, sir?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Well, one moment. I'm going to ask whether we should handle that at the end of the committee meeting. I know Monsieur Ménard has a time constraint.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I do, too. I have to leave at 5:30.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Okay. Then I'm going to ask that the room be vacated for five minutes, approximately. I'm sorry, gentlemen and ladies.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]