Justice Committee on Feb. 5th, 2008

[Hugh Coghill]

Very true.

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

I want to go to some comments from witnesses that were made last week by the mover of the bill, Senator Bryden, and get some reaction. He said a couple of things: those on the animal welfare side and I would “lose the lever” was the term, if Bill S-203 were passed, and that he would not support Bill S-203.

That brings me to something I want to know if you have a concern about, and that is that the House of Commons has twice passed the legislation that is Bill C-373. The Senate rejected it or sent it back or didn't deal with it on both occasions. Given the senator's comments that it's not as if they can pass both--they don't worry because people support both--the Senate is saying they don't support the other, they support one. So are you worried that if the Commons got through the legislation that we need to finally do something about animal cruelty, the Senate is going to use the excuse that they already dealt with this under Bill S-203?

I don't know if Ms. MacDonald wants to respond to that.

[Shelagh MacDonald]

That's a tough question. I can't predict what the Senate is going to do--

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

Is it a concern for you, though?

[Shelagh MacDonald]

Yes, I think we would have some concerns about that, but I would hope if we got there again and were able to get back that huge broad support we had, the Senate would finally listen.

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

The other comment--and maybe this is going to be a rhetorical question--is that so far every animal welfare group that has come before this committee is opposed to a bill that's supposed to be about dealing with animal welfare. I see that as ironic. The House of Commons is going to hold that we've done something about animal cruelty when every group that's involved with animal welfare says this isn't effective.

Comments were made last week by those who are supporting Bill S-203, who are involved with animal welfare.They said the real issue is penalties. To those who are on the other side, I'm wondering what your thoughts would be, whether or not the real issue is penalties. Perhaps I'll turn it over to Ms. MacDonald, Ms. Cartwright, and Mr. Mitton.

[Shelagh MacDonald]

We've said all along that the penalties are not the most important issue. Of course we support higher penalties, and they are very much needed. We've struggled with it, frankly, because I sit here representing humane societies and SPCAs across Canada that are trying to prosecute animal crimes appropriately, and they need a better tool. So it's difficult for us to oppose a bill that's at least doing something.

But the reason we continue to oppose it very strongly is we feel so strongly that the problems need to be fixed and that increasing the penalties is just not good enough. Doing that is outweighed by the need to close the loopholes that are problematic.

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

I'm wondering, Mr. Mitton made a comment about the fact that Bill C-50 had a broad range of support; it wasn't just the animal welfare groups, but after a lot of years of compromise and work, it was the vast majority of those who are also in the animal-use industry. Mr. Mitton made that comment, and I want to know if that was also your understanding, because I know compromises were made on both sides. I participated in those processes, and everybody on all sides was making compromises to get us toward the middle.

Would it be fair to say we were at a point of compromise and middle ground with what was Bill C-50, now Bill C-373, and that Bill S-203 represents a one-sided, animal-use industry bill, that we had a compromise, middle-ground bill and now we're dealing with something that isn't a compromise but is at the other end of the spectrum and only addresses the concerns of those in the animal use industry?

[Shelagh MacDonald]

Absolutely, there's no question this bill has nowhere near the level of support, and the broad support, that other bill had.

An interesting comment was made by Leslie Ballentine last week when she represented 16 animal-use industry groups, including trapping organizations, farming, and others. When asked if they would support Bill C-373, she said she would with one amendment. The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies had a few meetings with representatives of that coalition, and we agreed with that amendment because we think this bill should go through. If changing the offence of killing animals brutally or viciously to killing animals with brutal or vicious intent would bring back the support of those industry groups, then we are willing to accept that as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Holland.

Madame Freeman.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for your presentations. We are discussing Senator Bryden's bill, S-203, and we are constantly referring to the former Bill C-50 as well as to Bill C-373, tabled by our colleague Mr. Holland, which unfortunately may not be passed during this Parliament.

It is quite clear: some are for it and others are against. It seems to me that neither side is proposing any nuances. We must make a decision on Bill S-203, which seems insufficient but it would be possible to amend it.

Could you tell me what amendments you would like to see passed? We are not dealing with Bill C-373, but of course with Bill S-203. Do you have any amendments to propose? One cannot simply say they are for or against it. Amendments will certainly be put forward, and I would like to know which ones you would want to suggest.

Ms. Cartwright.

[Barbara Cartwright]

We are very concerned about the inadequacies of Bill S-203, and at this time we don't see how it could be made adequate.

If amendments were brought forward, we would certainly be interested in hearing them, but we haven't brought any prepared amendments.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I am well aware that you do not support this bill and that you would prefer to see Bill C-373 passed. That is clear. The fact remains that we must deal with Bill S-203, and not Bills C-373 or C-50. Given that we are studying Bill S-203, we will be in a position to propose amendments. In fact, I am convinced that there will be some.

Therefore, what amendments would you propose to improve the bill that we are studying today?

[Barbara Cartwright]

I don't feel qualified to answer that question. If we were going to propose amendments, then we would want to go back and consider very carefully what those amendments....

[Shelagh MacDonald]

We would recommend putting in a definition of “animal” that would treat all animals the same. This would require changing a lot of wording to take out references to “dogs”, “birds”, “cocks”. There's a lot of outdated language in the act. That's why we don't think making amendments is a good place to start. Other concerns we have include the concept of “wilful neglect”; the inadequacy of dog-fighting offences; treating different animals differently; having a separate section for cattle; considering acts against animals as property offences; and not allowing for the protection of wild and stray animals. There are numerous problems, probably too many to amend. The old bill, with its ancient language from 1892, is not a good place to start.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

So you suggest that the word "animals" be defined and that animals no longer be considered property.

Mr. Coghill, do you have something to propose?

[Hugh Coghill]

First of all, I agree that there would have to be a great many amendments to Bill S-203 to bring it up to date. For example, the use of the term “kept for a lawful purpose” gives a great deal of difficulty to enforcement officers. I'd like to see something that deals more specifically with the issue of dog fighting. It is a crime that's not adequately addressed in the Criminal Code, and I don't believe it's adequately addressed in Senator Bryden's bill either.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Mitton.

[Don Mitton]

I don't believe the bill before us, Bill C-203, provides an adequate foundation. I think the amendment that we would be proposing would, for all intents and purposes, bring us right back to C-373. It requires too many amendments to address the needs and issues of the current day.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

We asked Senator Bryden, when he appeared before this committee, if he would support Bill C-373, and he said that he would never do so.

Thank you.

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

No, Madame Freeman, you don't.

You wanted to get Mr. Pippolo's comments...? All right, thank you.

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you very much for coming here this afternoon.

I will pick up where the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice left off. We have before us a very specific piece of legislation, that is Bill S-203. We may, of course, always compare it to previous bills, but even if they were good, in fact excellent, they all died on the Order Paper and we are no longer discussing them today. We are trying to draw your attention to something that I feel is very important. A bill has been drafted, and it deals with protecting life. In fact, animals are part of the group to which we belong.

Mr. Farrant, when you read Bill S-203, tabled by Senator Bryden, did you note the fact that it was increasing sentences? I am just expressing my thoughts. That is not necessarily what you wanted to say. There is a difference between an offence punishable on summary conviction—and in my province, that is practically the only measure that is taken—and an indictable offence. If we are talking about an indictable offence, the prosecutor representing the government knows that he can obtain a five-year prison sentence, in some cases. That does not make everything perfect, but is it not progress?

Instead of assessing a ridiculous fine, the judge will be able to impose a prison term. This will be published in the papers and will be better publicized. People will become aware of it. It will not be as it is in my province, where the Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals has problems surviving because no one ever hears about them. The fines are absurd. We cannot even manage to shut down the puppy mills or dog mills. Wouldn't the fact that we could see that someone was given a three-year prison sentence on the front page of the papers, which cannot be the case currently in the case of some offences, constitute progress?

Mr. Farrant, I would like your opinion on the subject. Personally, I feel this truly represents progress even though it is not perfect. Following that, I would like to hear Ms. Barbara Cartwright's thoughts. She seems to be saying it is not acceptable. I can tell you that it would help us in my province. When a person is sent to prison for three years, they will not make the same mistake twice.

[Greg Farrant]

Thank you, sir. I appreciate your comments, and I would agree with your comments. Yes, we believe it is progress.

It's interesting, Ms. Freeman asked several members of this panel about what amendments they would suggest. I note with some wry humour that the amendments that have been suggested bring us back to Bill C-373 and the previous government bills.

This bill, from what I understand of Senator Bryden's intentions--it's why we've supported it all along--is that not only will it provide the courts with more punitive measures to use against animal abusers, but also, we hope, as I understand the senator hopes as well, it will act as a deterrent when exactly what you suggest happens--i.e., when there's a case on the front page of the Toronto Star, La Presse, or wherever else it happens to be that says an animal abuser got five years for hitting a dog on the head with a hammer.

If you want to consider amending the bill, nobody has ever suggested, “Why not increase the penalities and fines even heavier to make it even more of a deterrent?” I guess you could go in that direction. But certainly this goes well beyond what's available to the courts and the prosecutors now, and hopefully it will act in turn as a deterrent to those types of people.

Thank you, sir.

[Barbara Cartwright]

Thank you for the question.

Again, we are concerned about animal protection and see the animal cruelty legislation as a way to help increase the conviction rates, not just the penalties, so that more animals are protected by our humane societies and our SPCAs.

As Mr. Coghill answered maybe three or four questions ago, higher penalties do not mean higher conviction rates. In fact, nothing will change except that courts, when they do finally get the odd case to them, can then use higher penalties.

Our concern is that the SPCAs, the humane societies, and the police officers be able to better use the Criminal Code of Canada, which they have stated here today is not usable to a high degree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Monsieur Petit.

Mr. Bagnell.