Justice Committee on Jan. 31st, 2008

[Senator John Bryden]

We did not block the legislation in the Senate. The last time I actually made the motion, and the motion was made to support the aboriginal people, who wanted one more chance to get an abrogation clause to go inside that would do what they wanted it to do. What occurred was, instead of giving the final reading, they requested that the matter be referred back to the committee to see if they could get it to the point where it was in fact acceptable to them.

That was accepted in the Senate, and before anything more could be done, the House was prorogued. We've gone from prorogation to elections and so on. So most of the times that the bills have failed, they happened to be in the Senate some of those times, but it's because Parliament stopped and you had to start it over.

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

It is a fact that on at least one occasion you made significant amendments and that bill got sent back to the House of Commons.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Comartin has for the second time referred to Senator Bryden as “you” when I think Mr. Comartin may have been referring to the Senate rather than to Senator Bryden himself personally.

Senator Bryden here today does not represent the Senate. He does not represent a party in the Senate. He is an individual senator who has piloted a bill through the Senate and brought it to the House here at private members' business.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Comartin, put your questions to the chair and make reference generally.

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

Okay.

Mr. Chair, through you to the senator, you had--and I mean you personally, not the Senate--the opportunity to encompass in your bill--his bill, Mr. Chair--the entire part of what was originally Bill C-15, then Bill C-10-B and then Bill C-50 in the last House when this was before the House of Commons. Why did you choose to only selectively go at the penalty part as opposed to all the rest of the bill?

[Senator John Bryden]

The short answer is that the other parts of the bill all had problems with them. There had not been sufficient consultation before it was done. Any consultation that took place was after the fact; people were presented with a bill that was already there and were told, this is it, now come and see if you can fix it.

The other thing is that some misleading points were coming out, that what's legal today will be legal tomorrow under any one of these bills. Once it became clear there indeed were new offences in these bills, then people became very concerned, and that is why there are so many....

I grant the fact that there are a number of people who oppose this bill for reasons of their own making, for good and maybe not so good reasons, but where we are really coming from is to say we have to start somewhere. Surely if we can't agree to put a reasonable penalty scheme in the existing one, we are never going to be in a position to create this Cadillac version, which really crashed—and it crashed a number of times. And it was not John Bryden who made it crash.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Comartin.

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

Mr. Chair, through you to the senator, do you agree with the statement that the essential part of the bill was passed twice by the House and is now in private member's Bill C-373? The contents of Bill C-373 have, in essence, been passed twice by the House of Commons.

Do you agree with that or not?

[Senator John Bryden]

I agree.

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

Mr. Chair, I am not sure why I am being imposed upon by this particular rule, as it has not been the rule of this committee up to this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

In all fairness, Mr. Comartin, I think you come on somewhat antagonistically with the senator.

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

No question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

So just keep that in mind.

The senator will reply.

[Senator John Bryden]

I am trying to recall this. I know it was in the House of Commons and that it came over to us and then went back over to the House. It is my understanding that the one time it was passed, it was done with all three readings in one day in the House of Commons.

What you indicated, that the essential part of the bill—

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

Mr. Chair, could you ask the senator to refer to you rather than to me?

Could I have a ruling, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Comartin.

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

I would ask you to direct the senator to address you rather than me.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Senator.

[Senator John Bryden]

As a matter of fact, I prefer it that way.

The reference was made to the essential part of the original bills being passed here. So why did I decide to do the penalty ones?

The fact is that when these bills came down, the essential part of the bill was the penalties. Time after time, ministers of justice said, the major purpose of this bill is to increase the penalties; don't pay any attention to any of this other stuff; it's the penalties, such that 80% of the problem will be solved in the minds of Canadians.... They had done a survey, showing that 80% of the problem with animal cruelty wold be solved, Mr. Chair, if we got the penalties right.

Well, we got the penalties right. The one thing everyone agreed on was the level of penalties, and so on. Once we had them right, I thought it would be helpful, as a compromise, to take the existing law, which we have lived with for all this period of time, and to put within it the penalties everybody had agreed to. That is exactly what my bill does. It does no more or less than that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will try to direct my remarks through you to the senator.

In terms of the bill itself, from the pushback I have had from a local perspective, the bill doesn't go far enough. For example, animal fighting is not firmly addressed in this bill.

Through you, Chair, how would the senator respond to that?

[Senator John Bryden]

My response, Mr. Chair, is that it's true. As I indicated, I did not start out to create new offences, because once you start there is an endless road.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

One of the other points I noted is the past objections that are centred around vague language in the legislation that some anglers and hunters believe may put them in a very tough position. So it's the exact opposite argument, that it actually goes too far.

[Senator John Bryden]

The answer to that is that that may be the case, because there are situations in other countries where, under the rubric of not causing any pain, suffering, or injury to an animal, it includes angling, and in particular, catch-and-release angling. It is not, the way the other bills read, without lawful excuse. When I hook a salmon in a catch-and-release position, I don't have the excuse that I need the food. I'm hunting or fishing for sport. I do not have a lawful excuse.

I want to indicate something. If that bill had passed in that fashion...having a valid fishing, hunting, or trapping licence from a province of competent jurisdiction does not count as a valid excuse if you're charged under that Criminal Code section. The case from the Supreme Court of Canada that made that so is the Jorgensen case. I can give you the notation, but I don't have it right here. But that is a fact, and it was specified to us.

I asked the question of the Department of Justice in another hearing. I asked, if we have valid fishing and hunting licences from provincial jurisdictions or a proper jurisdiction, whether that is a valid excuse. The answer was no, it is not, and I was referred to that case. I read the case, and that's the way the law is. It's a constitutional thing. And the other is that a provincial licence does not trump a Criminal Code charge.

You can imagine how that was reacted to by those folks who fish. You can imagine the reaction in relation to the aboriginal people as well.