Justice Committee on Feb. 5th, 2008

[Don Mitton]

Our world is full of compromises, but we would be very pleased to see that legislation go ahead.

[Shelagh MacDonald]

CFHS has never actually sat down and tried to write what would be our ideal bill, so that's a difficult question to answer, but we do fully support Bill C-373.

But we have accepted compromise. And we weren't so much opposed to those amendments made by the Senate, but we thought they were unnecessary. There was a lot of debate about the application of lawful excuses, including colour of right, and we thought that was completely unnecessary. There were some compromises made at that time, in 2003.

But we're happy with it the way it is. We think that compromise is important.

[Barbara Cartwright]

We agree. We see Bill C-373 as the result of a great deal of debate and compromise. It's important in a democratic process to engage in that compromise. We can't all have our dream world, regardless of which side we fall on this.

But Bill S-203 doesn't provide anything close to what Bill C-373 provides, which in our opinion, as Ms. Elmslie mentioned, is the result of broad debate, broad support—support from this very House twice, which I always go back to, because to me it's so important that the voices of the people were heard and that it got blocked at the Senate.

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

What I think I'm hearing is that the animal welfare groups made compromises with respect to getting to Bill C-50—as did many of the animal user groups, by the way; I'm not just talking about one side. Both sides made compromises to get to a middle point.

What we're seeing with Bill S-203 is that it's the bill where there's no compromise; it's the bill that is only addressing concerns on the animal-use side. None of the issues I'm hearing are really being substantively dealt with on the animal welfare side.

This brings me to my last question. This would be to you, Kim. You talked about how Canada sized up relative to the rest of the world. What you didn't get a chance to say is—and it's embarrassing, frankly—that we're behind nations such as the Philippines. That's something we should really hang our heads about, I think, personally.

How would Bill S-203, after it was passed—I hope it doesn't happen, but let's just presume and say it did get passed.... How would Canada stack up against the rest of the world?

[Kim Elmslie]

We would still be low. We'd still be one of the lowest on the comparison.... We would have slightly higher penalties. But again, our conviction rates and our ability to convict people who are committing acts of cruelty against animals—people who could be convicted under other international legislation—would still be missing out.

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

As a first world nation, then, we would still be considered something of a joke or an embarrassment after passing Bill S-203. So what we're debating is whether or not we pass something that still leaves us as an embarrassment in the rest of the world.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

How much time do I have? Five minutes?

First of all, I'd like to thank everybody for coming here. It's been very interesting.

I'll basically ask the same questions I asked of the sponsor of the bill and the people who've testified before. I'm very concerned as a farmer and as somebody who represents a rural riding in Alberta that if we go too far we may affect some of the sensibilities of the good folks back home in Alberta, especially those who come from the agricultural sector, those who have used animal husbandry, farming, hunting, fishing, and trapping as a way of life for a certain amount of time in our history.

I'm concerned that if we lose this opportunity right now, we won't have an opportunity. I know there's another bill on the table as well.

But I am also concerned about some of the things that I guess my colleagues have made a point about as well: that there seems to be an all or nothing approach to this piece of legislation before us. When I see an all or nothing approach or see somebody entrenched or with their heels dug in, I'm usually led to believe they have an agenda beyond what's actually being discussed. The rationale I've heard is just not satisfying me, that passing Bill S-203 right now would somehow preclude our going further in the future. I want to get some clarification from some of the folks around the table here to see whether I can get at some of the roots of that agenda.

The IFAW is against the seal hunt, isn't that right? Would it be fair to say the IFAW is against all forms of hunting?

[Barbara Cartwright]

Absolutely not.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

How can you justify or change your position, saying that the seal hunt is not okay, yet other forms of hunting are okay? How do you rationalize that? It's like saying Bill S-203 isn't okay, but some future bill that we're going to see is okay. Can you rationalize that for me?

[Barbara Cartwright]

With all due respect, can you ask me the question again? I think I may have gotten slightly lost.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Your organization is diametrically opposed to the seal hunt, yet you just told me that you're not opposed to all forms of hunting. Can you rationalize that? It seems to me that you're opposed to Bill S-203, which does something, in lieu of something else that you don't have yet. Can you please—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

There's a point of order.

Mr. Holland.

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

The point of order is that neither bill, neither Bill C-373 nor the bill in front of us, deals with seal hunting. Seal hunting would be legal under both instances. I think that may be why there is some confusion. Seal hunting may be another issue, but it isn't dealt with in either bill.

[An hon. member]

This is a matter of debate, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Calkins, put your question.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I guess what I'm getting at, the point I'm trying to make, is that it seems to be an entrenched position. To me, it makes good sense to take Bill S-203 now, while we have it. When another bill comes forward, whether it's a government bill or a private member's bill, I think it should be given full examination and every opportunity to be debated as well.

What I'm getting at here is that from your organization's perspective, you're entrenched on this particular issue, and I can't see a good reason for it. You're entrenched against seal hunting, yet you're not entrenched against hunting, maybe, in another way. So I'm just wondering what it is. Is it an organizational thing? Help me understand where the rationale comes from for some of the positions the IFAW takes.

[Barbara Cartwright]

Well, I'll speak to Bill S-203 and that position. Our concern, as we've said from the outset, is that higher penalties don't bring us higher convictions. IFAW has been involved in this process to increase protection for animals by increasing the number of people being punished for heinous acts of animal cruelty.

The Senate is the one that was entrenched. I have every confidence in this House to pass Bill C-373 and to pass good legislation that protects animals and that responds to Canadians' needs. When the Senate came back with those amendments, this House said no, they wouldn't accept all those amendments. They accepted the non-derogation clause, and they sent it back to the Senate. Unfortunately, prorogation happened, and it hasn't moved forward.

I don't feel that IFAW has been in any way entrenched, except at this point in time, when Bill S-203 does not afford animals any greater protection.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

In your analysis here, with all the countries you've chosen in this particular document, I notice that conspicuously absent are some countries such as the United States of America and Australia. And if we look at some of the other western societies, they're conspicuously absent. I'm just wondering if you could tell me....

I read a section in here that said that these countries were chosen because each has federal legislation, the legislation is available in English, and detailed information about that legislation is easily accessible on the worldwide web.

The United States of America just pressed federal charges against Michael Vick for conspiracy with respect to dog fighting. It would seem to me that there would be no reason—that's a federal charge—they would be left out of the comparative analysis.

Could you please tell me about that?

[Kim Elmslie]

Sure. In the United States, the majority of animal cruelty cases are done at the state level. However, dog fighting is a crime at a federal level. But when we looked at legislation, it was all state to state.

I can tell you that the state legislation I looked at far outranks Canada's. In fact, as of yesterday, the individual who sold Michael Vick his dogs has now been fined and charged as well. These are things we would not see here in Canada.

The U.S. legislation is far more advanced than what we have here in Canada, but we didn't include it in the report because it is state to state.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Committee, that brings us to a close. I would like to thank all the witnesses for their appearance and their presentations. I think we've had a pretty thorough discussion of this particular bill. Your perspectives were welcome. Thank you again.

The meeting is adjourned.