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.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
That is fine, I understand your perspective. I would like to hear from all of the panellists during the time that I have been allotted.
Go ahead.
4:25 p.m.
Program Director, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
Sure. I'd like to add a comment.
I would suggest, as indicated by that pile of papers, that the debate over the last eight years has been substantial. In House committees and Senate committees, there has been extensive debate on this issue. I can't see how we can say that no progress was made. Substantial progress was made in 2003, when amendments were accepted that brought pretty much everybody onside. That's why I think it's crazy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. When we came to the 11th hour, we were 99% there. It's not true that this bill has gone further than the bill in 2003. That bill in 2003 was one step away from receiving royal assent, and now we're looking at passing it. It's huge that we were so close, and the Senate, an unelected body, wouldn't allow it to pass.
It also seems to me that Mark Holland's private member's bill is not the only way to get this job done. If the governing party were to take on that bill and listen to the will of Canadians, we could get this done very quickly.
4:25 p.m.
Chief Inspector, Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
I agree with Shelagh MacDonald on that.
Certainly, the Ontario SPCA supports Mr. Holland's bill and can't support Bill S-203 the way it is now. With its wording, we're still stuck with the same sections of the Criminal Code we've been struggling with for 115 years. I think the time has come for some change.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I will let you complete the circuit.
Mr. Pippolo, a quick comment, and then Mr. Mitton.
4:25 p.m.
Acting General Manager, Canadian Professional Rodeo Association
We feel at the Canadian Professional Rodeo Association that there's animal cruelty going on every day out there. We need something done about it. I think the time has come to move forward with what is in front of us now, which has reached the stage it has.
Thank you.
4:30 p.m.
Project Director, Canadian Association for Humane Trapping
Our position is that Bill S-373 addressed the issues and that the current bill before you only speaks to penalties after one-hundred-and-some-odd years. The pets, the animals, and the people of Canada deserve better.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here, witnesses.
Mr. Coghill, if I could start with you, the committee is getting significantly contradictory information coming before it on the success rate of prosecution. We heard from Mr. Farrant today, and from the coalition last week, that the conviction rate is up in the 80th or 90th percentile range. We are hearing from Ms. MacDonald, Ms. Cartwright, and Ms. Elmslie that the conviction rate is .025.
You're in the field—and in the courts, I'm assuming, on occasion. Can you give us an assessment as to what the real conviction rate is?
4:30 p.m.
Chief Inspector, Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
Certainly, and thank you for your question, because it gives me the opportunity to clarify that.
I'm in the court quite a bit. In almost 31 years of being employed by the Ontario SPCA and about four years by the BCSPCA, I've laid many Criminal Code charges and provincial offence charges. I think the confusion comes from a quotation, or perhaps from somebody comparing statistics. I think the Ontario SPCA averages 15,000 to 16,000 cruelty investigations per annum. We lay charges in a range of 500 to 600 per year. I think that's where the 0.1% comes in. So it's not necessarily a conviction but a prosecution rate. They are charges that we feel, based on the existing legislation and the poor wording of the legislation, we'll be able to present to court or to take into the courts.
It's true that our charges were up by 43% in 2004, but there are two reasons for that. First of all, the Ontario SPCA received a penalty section in 2002 under the OSPCA Act. So the 43% increase in charges isn't just from Criminal Code charges; there are provincial offence charges in there as well. So we began laying charges under the puppy mill legislation in Ontario. These charges are lumped into the overall figure. So it's a bit misleading for someone to quote those statistics.
Yes, our conviction rate is very high, at 80% to 90%. I don't have the exact percentile, but it is very high for a number of reasons. The primary reason is that we don't take cases to court frivolously.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Let me interrupt you there, Mr. Coghill.
Are the 15,000 or 16,000 cases you investigate every year just in the Toronto area?
4:30 p.m.
Chief Inspector, Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
They are in the province of Ontario.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Of those 15,000 to 16,000, can you tell the committee how many you would like to be able to charge?
4:30 p.m.
Chief Inspector, Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
The interesting thing, paralleling those statistics, is the fact that there are over 2,000 Ontario SPCA orders issued to animal owners in an attempt to improve animal welfare. Presumably, a ratio of those would be offences that could be charged if the wording were different in the Criminal Code. I'm not suggesting that it would be 2,000, but it would certainly be something more than the 355, for instance, we had in 2006.
4:30 p.m.
Chief Inspector, Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
Probably, yes.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
All right.
Mr. Farrant, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters had a request, when Bill C-50 was working its way through the House, that they be exempted from the legislation. Is that correct?
4:30 p.m.
Manager, Government Relations, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
I'd have to go back. We asked for an exemption under the law, I believe—yes, that's probably technically correct—on the advice of legal counsel. I want to be very clear, though, that I don't recall arguing that under that particular legislation hunting and fishing would become illegal. What I do remember arguing on that issue was the fact that the bill, at the time it was being discussed, would open anglers, hunters, farmers, rodeo riders, trappers, medical researchers, and a whole host of people in regulated animal-based or animal-use industries, however you care to define it, to frivolous and vexatious charges in the courts.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I've heard those arguments. If I can stay with that, actually, I have the amendment here, with your card attached to it, from that period of time.
4:35 p.m.
Manager, Government Relations, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Then you are ahead of me, because I don't.
February 5th, 2008 / 4:35 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Last week, again, the coalition, in spite of some of their other opposition to Bill C-50, indicated a willingness to have that section in Bill C-50 about animals being killed brutally put in as an amendment to this bill. Would your association take the same position?
4:35 p.m.
Manager, Government Relations, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
I'd have to go back and take a look at how that would alter the bill, quite frankly. Once you start amending the bill and start opening that door, who is to say where it stops and what other definitions may be included and what other changes may be proposed?
The bill, as it stands now, is a simple, straightforward piece of legislation that does one thing, and does one thing very well.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I assume if I asked you some other questions about other amendments, you would be in the same position. You'd have to go back to the association and look at the bill and determine then whether you could agree or not.
4:35 p.m.
Manager, Government Relations, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
That's correct. Again, I would repeat that this bill is a simple, straightforward piece of legislation, and once you begin to amend it, the doors open; the Pandora's box is unleashed. And who knows where you stop with that? If you pass the bill unamended, as it is, it is simple, it is straightforward, and it immediately can take effect in the courts.