Justice Committee on Feb. 5th, 2008

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Ms. Elmslie, thank you for this document from the various countries. Mr. Holland gave it to me about an hour before the meeting. It's very interesting.

I want to make sure I'm correct on the fines. I find this interesting. You're right, if you compare the various countries, we seem to be the worst or near the worst in the world. But if this particular bill went through, we'd be about average on fines, in the middle somewhere, but we'd have the stiffest penalties in the world as far as maximum prison rates are concerned.

Would that be true, based on any countries you've dealt with?

[Kim Elmslie]

The maximum prison rates?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

It would be five years, and there's no one on this--

[Kim Elmslie]

In Austria, you can have indefinite maximum life sentences, as well as in Great Britain, which has just passed its Animal Welfare Act in 2006. They are looking at a potential....

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Okay. Thank you.

One of the things from previous bills that I was very interested in--as everyone said, there were some good things there--was restitution. The humane societies have hardly any money.

Anyone can comment on this.

Mr. Pippolo, did you say that this is in the particular bill we're discussing today, that people could be forced to pay restitution to humane societies?

[Jim Pippolo]

Yes.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Are there any other comments on that?

I have one last question, which everyone can answer.

We had a horrendous situation in my area in which a person--I think he was mentally unstable--was being cruel to dogs. The police were out to investigate, and he heard they were coming. I think he had about 50 dogs, and he just shot them all to death.

Is there anything in any of the bills we've dealt with before that would have dealt with that situation?

Second, should there be a provision in this amended bill or in some bill in the future that would deal with a situation like that?

Everyone can answer that.

[Hugh Coghill]

If I can respond to that, I don't know about that particular instance, if it was in Ontario, but we've been faced with similar issues in Ontario. Courts have felt that with the existing wording in the legislation, the issue of ownership implies the ability to do whatever you want with that animal, as long as it's not done in a cruel way. Ownership is the lawful excuse, so that issue, again, of the use of those words--“kept for a lawful excuse”--becomes a problem for us.

If I can slip back to a previous question about indictable offences, you'll know that section 444 currently exists in the Criminal Code; it is an indictable offence. We've laid a charge under that section twice only in 30 years. The honourable member, being a lawyer, will know that when it first appears in court, crown has the right to make an election. In both of those cases, crown elected to proceed summarily, rather than by way of indictment--so that automatically reduced it--because of the cost factor that's involved. We can understand that as well.

Hybrid offences are fraught with issues as well. They may seem like a good way to go by increasing the penalties, but I think increasing the provisions for a national prohibition order under federal legislation is of paramount concern to SPCAs across Canada.

We can currently, in many provinces--not in Ontario, unfortunately--get prohibition orders under provincial legislation. This has happened many times, and the accused or the convicted person simply moves to another province. If we can get a better prohibition for something more than the two years that are there now, that will be a plus as well.

But there are problems that haven't been addressed with regard to hybrid offences.

I'm sorry, I went way off your question.

[Greg Farrant]

Just to follow on Mr. Coghill's comment, this bill does open-end the prohibition of animals for abusers. Obviously, it wouldn't necessarily have avoided the case that you suggested, which is quite horrific, but it certainly would allow the courts to prevent that person from ever owning an animal again in their lives. Mr. Coghill seems to be indicating that this needs to be applied nationally, which this bill does.

We strongly support the fact that people who abuse animals should not have the opportunity in the future to own animals again, and the courts will have that ability.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

I'm sorry, what was that, Mr. Bagnell?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I think there were people who wanted to answer the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

If you would then, go ahead, Ms. Elmslie.

[Kim Elmslie]

I just want to make a quick comment on Mr. Bagnell's case.

I know the case you're talking about from the Yukon, with the dogs that were stacked up. When the RCMP arrived, they were about to confiscate the animals and the individual who had killed them beforehand. Because of the loopholes in the legislation that exist right now, they could not press any charges against that individual. So it would have been nice to have a situation in which this individual could no longer have animals or would have been fined, but the fact is that they couldn't get any conviction. So nothing would have changed under Bill S-203. It would have been exactly the same outcome as it is now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you. I did want to ask questions to both Kim and Barbara.

I take it that the background of your organization's beginning was the seal hunt. That was the original purpose of your existence? You have expanded since then, obviously.

Regardless of what your position on that issue may be--whether you're in support of the seal hunt or whether you're opposed to it--folks make strong arguments on both sides of the case as to whether it should or whether it shouldn't happen. I wonder if that isn't a reasonably good example of the difficulties we face here in trying to move this forward, because in some respects, unless we move all the way to the legislation that you as an organization prefer, you're not going to come here supportive of it. Likewise, if we go too far the other way, we're going to have organizations that wouldn't support it at all because of the damage it would do to their industry or their business or what have you.

I wonder if you can comment on that, because I'd like to think that our responsibilities are to try to find some common ground here and work through this. It seems to me that you've taken a position that makes it extremely difficult to pass legislation that even the other folks sitting at the table would support.

[Kim Elmslie]

That's an excellent question. I'd like to point out that the Bill C-50 legislation, prior to Mark's introduction, had been passed by this House twice by all of the parties at the time. I think at one point there were five. So that was passed, and it was stopped by an unelected Senate. And this is the piece of legislation that the overwhelming majority of Canadians support. As Shelagh pointed out, with maybe one small amendment I think the industry groups would be happy with it as well. I think we have the industry groups, the vast majority of Canadians, and the animal welfare organizations onside. To me, that sounds like a lot of people onside, versus the situation we have right now in which you don't have the Canadian public or any of the animal welfare groups who are charged with protecting animals from cruelty....

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

That's a good response.

Mr. Farrant, maybe you could comment on something under the previous legislation. It's my understanding that the anglers and hunters were actually asking to be exempted from the legislation because they feared so badly that it would have such a significant impact on them.

[Greg Farrant]

Certainly I'd be pleased to comment on that.

One of the reasons we were seeking exemption under the previous legislation was in response to comments that had been made, not by anybody at this table but certainly by people who I would classify as animal rights organizations as opposed to animal protection organizations. They made it very clear, both through their lawyers and in their public statements, including their statements in testimony before committee on previous bills, that they were seeking to move forward with those particular pieces of legislation in order to use them to vigorously pursue charges against a whole range of animal-use groups, including anglers and hunters in the courts. They made it very clear that this was just the very beginning and that their intentions were to go far down the road from even where bills such as Mr. Holland's bill and other previous bills were intending to go. So certainly there was a concern at that time that we were being open...and it was a concern that was also expressed by people like the Council of Colleges and Universities, who were concerned about the impact that would have on medical researchers.

It's not necessarily the fact that you would be convicted in court, but the fact that you are dragged into court and forced to defend yourself. There was one small case in western Canada in which that occurred, and the individual incurred costs of $10,000, and the judge summarily threw the case out of court, saying it should have never gotten there. But that individual's welfare was severely compromised. So that was the concern at that particular time.

[Shelagh MacDonald]

There's been a great deal of discussion about the fear of animal rights groups, and I want to make it clear that animal rights groups do not have any authority to lay charges, any more than you or I, as a private prosecution. We have stringent screening processes in our system to prevent frivolous prosecutions from proceeding. Because either of these bills would make hybrid offences, there is a much higher scrutiny from the crown attorney as well as a change that was added in 2002 to require a person wanting to lay a private prosecution to appear before a provincial court judge and convince him there is a need to pursue the case. That would all happen before an accused person were even notified.

I can understand people worrying about animal rights groups, but you've got to look at the practicality. They do not have the authority to lay charges.

People have even suggested that animal rights groups would try to second humane societies or SPCAs to lay their charges for them, and I find that an offensive suggestion. That would never happen.

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

Mr. Mitton, I have a question for you.

I don't mean to go from one end of the table to the other, but one of the things that stands out for me is that your mission is to abolish the pain and suffering of animals trapped for any reason whatsoever. That's pretty categorical.

There are folks who would argue, whether they be in research facilities inside or outside universities, that there is a potential for this to happen for reasons that are good for both the animal population and kingdom and also for humanity.

Again, I draw you to the conclusion that it would seem, regardless of what the legislation is, that if it doesn't suit your purpose-stated objective, you wouldn't be able to support the legislation to begin with.

[Don Mitton]

For the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping, utopia would be the perfect mouse trap. We're hoping for perfect trapping. We realize that we're a distance from that now, but it is interesting that in all our provinces and territories, as of the end of 2007, the regulations regarding the agreement on international humane trapping standards are now written into the regulations. It's moving forward.

We financially assist a number of trapping organizations and people with a scientific background in designing new traps that are more effective and more humane. We appreciate that the concept of a humane trap may seem impossible, but that does not mean we should not continue to strive to be sure that the traps being used are the most humane possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Dykstra.

Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps I can take that a little further, because I think there's some confusion occurring in the committee.

I can understand where Mr. Dykstra is coming from. Obviously, we want to see everybody compromise. I think maybe what's being forgotten here is that the previous Bill C-50, now Bill C-373, represents a compromise. Maybe I should ask, just to be clear, Mr. Mitton, Ms. MacDonald, Mrs. Cartwright, and Kim—sorry, Kim, I can't see your last name over the microphones--does Bill C-50 represent a compromise for you, or is that your ideal bill? I think we need to clear that up.

We'll start with Mr. Mitton.

[Don Mitton]

Our association would be very pleased to see that legislation pass. We are in agreement with the proposed amendment that the coalition brought forward at this committee last week. We would agree with that.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

But if you were to draft your own bill and go as far as you could possibly go and do exactly what you wanted to do, would that be Bill C-50, or are you compromising under what's now Bill C-373, which was Bill C-50?