Welcome, Senator.
I was a little taken aback by your testimony. I can appreciate the battle that you have waged. When one has convictions and is involved in drafting a bill, one obviously hopes that the bill will ultimately be adopted.
However, no doubt you know that we have advised several members of Parliament that we find your bill comes up very short on content. The key issue is not increasing penalties, since few people are actually brought before the courts. We have even heard that barely one per cent of persons who commit acts of cruelty involving animals are effectively charged with a crime.
As long as we are re-opening the debate and considering draft legislation, why not take steps to include a definition of “animal” in the bill, to include animals as property and to consider the case of wild and homeless animals? Several of the shortcomings in your bill were brought to our attention, as parliamentarians. Other members have endeavoured to correct these shortcomings. I won't identify these individuals by name, but one of them is seated right next to me at the table today.
Furthermore, if ever the House were to vote on the bill and send it off to the Senate, would the Upper House adopt a bill with even stricter measures? I admit that the two bills are not incompatible, but you cannot pretend that no one is opposed to your bill. I have heard many arguments, as I am sure my colleagues have.
Animal welfare organizations have roundly criticized your bill, arguing that it has serious shortcomings. Will you admit that there is opposition to your bill? Let me say again that the two bills are not incompatible, but I have to wonder, while we are on the subject, why we shouldn't take things a step further. Basically, will you admit that animal welfare groups do not support your bill, and prefer the one tabled by a colleague in the House?