Evidence of meeting #11 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was s-203.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Project Director, Canadian Association for Humane Trapping
Yes. We work with trapping organizations. We do trapping education programs. And we have assisted in the funding of trap research in association with the Fur Institute of Canada and the University of Alberta to improve the types of traps available for our trappers.
Conservative
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you very much.
Thank you all for coming. Those were very interesting perspectives on the bill.
One thing I want to add for the record is that another reason all of us in Parliament want to deal with this is that there are proven tests that animal cruelty leads in direct proportion to increased human cruelty and offences against human beings. It's very serious.
I have a bunch of questions, so hopefully the answers won't be too long.
Inspector, I, too, would like to make sure that in the future animal fighting will be totally prohibited. I'm curious as to whether any of those 300 or so convictions you mentioned were related to animals fighting in Ontario or anywhere else.
Chief Inspector, Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
There haven't been any specifically with regard to fighting. It's very, very difficult under the wording of the current legislation to get a conviction. An enforcement officer would literally have to burst in at the time the animals were fighting each other in order to get a conviction under that section of the Criminal Code of Canada.
With dog-fighting cases we've more likely gone with charges of failing to provide suitable and adequate care, after the fact. These are animals that have been victims of dog fighting and have not received proper veterinary care. Or we have used the charge of wilfully causing unnecessary pain and suffering, which is a difficult thing to prove in court because of the issue with the word “wilfully”.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I have a couple of questions about stray animals, but first, have there been convictions for animals that aren't people's pets?
Chief Inspector, Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
Are you referring to killing an animal without lawful excuse?
Liberal
Chief Inspector, Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
Not under that particular section, which says--
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Under any section, then; have there been any convictions of people being cruel or doing something to animals that aren't their pets?
Chief Inspector, Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
Yes.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
There have been.
I'm assuming--without getting into all of the other side details--that no one on the panel disagrees that we should increase the penalties.
Okay, good.
Mr. Farrant, I know I'm getting away from the bill we're debating, but I think three of the other parties talked about wild, feral, stray animals being, to quote from a submission, “virtually unprotected”.
Again, I know this is not the bill we're dealing with, so you may not have information on it, but do you or Mr. Pippolo have any comments on that?
Manager, Government Relations, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
The only comment I would have on that, Mr. Bagnell, is that in testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on November 9, 2006, Mr. Piragoff, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister for Justice Canada, addressed that issue. He suggested that under, I believe, paragraph 446(1)(a), stray animals indeed are covered under the Criminal Code and are covered under the current law.
So the suggestion that wild or stray animals are not covered is not correct, according to what he and Ms. Klineberg said in testimony that day, as I read it.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
I'll start this question with Mr. Pippolo, but anyone else can answer, if they wish.
You mentioned that this bill we're discussing today would allow offences to be hybrid offences, go by summary or indictable. Just for our information and our knowledge base, what difference would that make from the present situation?
If you can't answer that, someone else in the panel is welcome to do so.
Acting General Manager, Canadian Professional Rodeo Association
I'll pass on the question. I have some information on it, but not a lot.
Manager, Government Relations, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Once again, I'll quote from Mr. Piragoff of the justice department:
One aspect of Bill S-213 would make all offences hybrid, meaning the prosecution could choose to proceed by way of summary conviction procedure or by way of indictment, depending on the seriousness of the case. It would then separate offences into two categories: one for injuring animals intentionally or recklessly, the second for injuring animals by neglect. That is an important distinction because under traditional criminal law principles, actions that are done knowingly or even with recklessness as to the consequences are treated as more serious than those committed by criminal neglect or by gross inadvertence.
I'm not a lawyer, so don't ask me to explain that, but that was his definition of what is meant by hybrid offences.
Program Director, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
Sure.
The idea of making them hybrid offences is so that we can proceed with a more serious offence for particularly heinous crimes. Certainly we think that the majority of crimes would still be convicted as summary conviction offences, but in the case of repeat offences or particularly heinous crimes that are very violent or where there's huge animal suffering involved, the society definitely thinks it's appropriate to prosecute those as hybrid offences.
So it's recognizing that animal crimes are a form of violence in our society that can be charged more seriously.
Could I respond to the last question you had, just quickly?
Program Director, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
I just wanted to quote also from Joanne Klineberg in that very same testimony at the legal and constitutional affairs committee. She spoke after Mr. Piragoff, and made the point that the actual words do apply that an animal can be a wild or stray animal:
Nonetheless, exceptionally few cases have been decided on this point. All I have been able to find in the jurisprudence is cases that suggest that, as a matter of theory in some other case, this could apply to wild or stray animals.
Now, although Mr. Coghill mentioned that it is possible to prosecute cases against wild or stray animals, it is very difficult, mostly because they are currently considered property offences and just because animal crimes are not serious offences.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Mr. Bagnell, you have no more time.
Mr. Farrant, don't worry about the legal definition that you read off. There are seven lawyers sitting at this table, and every one of them understood exactly what you were saying.
Monsieur Ménard.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Thank you.
First of all, I apologize for having missed the first part of your presentations, but there was a debate in the House on the security certificates. From time to time the committee sits while we are dealing with bills for which that committee or a related committee is responsible.
The Bloc Québécois caucus recognizes the superiority of Mr. Holland's bill in terms of definition and scope. There is no doubt that the two bills cannot be compared. The discussion must establish a comparison with the status quo. Apparently it is a question of prison terms from six months to five years. There may be restitution orders. The bill defines what it means to inflict cruel treatment causing pain. It seems to us that the bill we are dealing with is not incompatible with Mr. Holland's bill, that we will be studying later on if there are no amendments. The more we listen to witnesses, the more we are convinced that you are asking us to defeat this bill. The two bills are not fundamentally incompatible. If we had to choose between the two, and if we were told that before a certain number of years a single bill would be studied by elected representatives, Mr. Holland's would obviously be far more satisfying. Given the number he has drawn in the House's order of precedence, must we make do with the status quo, or wait for Mr. Holland's bill? Why not take advantage of this intermediate measure that this bill is putting forward, which represents a clear improvement in comparison with the status quo? I am open to all arguments. Perhaps Ms. Freeman and I should be making other arguments to our caucus, but we believe that we should vote in favour of this bill, which is not incompatible with Mr. Holland's, and, ultimately, we should adopt his bill.
I find that that is not the perspective of the people who have been appearing before the committee for the last few days. I will begin with you, Ms. Elmslie. Are you happy with our strategy or would you invite us to abandon it?
Campaigner, International Fund for Animal Welfare
I think we have to look at what Canadians want and at what is best for animals.
I know it can be alluring and seductive to want to increase penalties, but when we look at how low those conviction rates are and how long it has taken us to get here, what are we really improving? So we're not doing what the majority of Canadians want.
Greg, very thoughtfully, brought this stack of what looks to me like democracy sitting on the table, this large debate that has gone on for nine years. And you're so close to getting the kind of legislation that truly will protect animals, which Canadians truly want. I think it's worth it to continue to go after a bill that, as you said, is much more appetizing.
Bloc
Manager, Government Relations, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
You're quite correct. I appreciate the question. I don't share that opinion, nor do the people I represent. Realistically, I don't think anybody sitting at this table would suggest that the passage of Bill S-203 will end the debate on this issue either now or in the foreseeable future.
The question you have to ask yourselves is this. It's been 10 years since the justice department first put out its consultation paper on potential amendments, or proposed amendments, on this issue, and we're still sitting here debating this issue. Nothing has been advanced in that time.
We're all aware of the vagaries of Parliament. We're also aware that all of you sitting here today are subject to what is euphemistically known as the largest public consultation, a general election. There is rumour consistently on the Hill that an election may be coming sooner than later. If that, indeed, is the case and it comes sooner than we would have hoped, both of these bills will be lost and we are back to square one again.
Bill S-203 is at a stage now in the House much farther advanced than we have managed to get it in a long time. With all due respect to the honourable member for Ajax—Pickering, his bill is far behind this in the rota in the House.
This bill before you today requires a vote on report when it comes out of committee, third reading, and it's done. We at least, then, should we be subject to the possibility of a future general election—