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.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Actually, what it does, Mr. Farrant, is absolutely nothing. It's really an insult to our intelligence to suggest that this is a progressive piece of legislation.
Mr. Mitton--
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Mr. Comartin, I'm going to ask that you put your question quickly, and then your time will be up.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Okay.
Mr. Mitton, I assume you followed the process of the various incarnations of the bill. I want to know if you agree with this or not. My perception is that we had a coalition of almost all the groups, with a few exceptions. We got it through the House. We got it to the Senate. Some of the groups then convinced the unelected Senate--the unrepresented, the irresponsible Senate--to thwart the passage of that bill and get royal assent.
Would you agree with that assessment of the facts?
4:35 p.m.
Project Director, Canadian Association for Humane Trapping
Yes, I would agree with that assessment.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you, Mr. Comartin. You're so diplomatic, sir.
Go ahead, Mr. Moore.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Chair.
Thanks to all the witnesses for being here and for all your briefs. We've all had an opportunity, I'm sure, to read over those and listen to your testimony. It's all very interesting.
We've had representatives from the International Fund for Animal Welfare visit my office, and we've had a bit of this discussion. The situation we find ourselves in with this bill is a little odd. We, as a Parliament, obviously have rules that you are all probably becoming familiar with over the course of the debate on animal cruelty. We deal with one bill at a time in a committee like this. Usually when we have a bill before the committee, whatever the nature of the bill, our discussion is focused predominately on the bill in front of us.
The way things usually work here is that we don't pick one bill or another. That's what makes this issue complex. For one reason or another, whether it's deliberate or not, it's been put to parliamentarians to pick one piece of legislation or another, and that is actually not the way we usually operate. Usually we have a bill in front of us, and we decide around the table if we support the bill or not. Then we decide on other things on other days. We can only really deal with what's in front of us.
My colleague Mr. Bagnell put this question to the panel of witnesses: do you support raising the penalty for animal cruelty? I didn't hear anyone say they didn't support that. I haven't heard any of the members around this table say that they don't support increasing the penalty for a conviction under animal cruelty.
The problem we're faced with is that we have a bill in front of us that admittedly does only one thing: it increases the penalty for animal cruelty. We have a panel that's saying we should increase the penalty for animal cruelty, and yet we're being told not to support the bill. I'd like to know how people reconcile that.
Some witnesses have said that they liked another bill better. That's fair enough. The only problem is right now, today, we're not dealing with that bill. What I would say to that is that we can only deal with this bill now.
We've had all kinds of legislation in this committee on gun crimes, for example. The police come, and the bar association comes. On impaired driving, MADD Canada will come, the Quebec Bar Association, and victims groups. We are never under any illusion that there will never be before this committee another bill dealing with gun crimes or another bill dealing with impaired driving.
The witnesses come, and they say they support this bill because it does this, or they oppose the bill because it does that. We don't usually have a witness say that they support what the bill does, but it doesn't do everything they want so they want us to oppose it now. I've never had anyone say that before now.
In light of that, I'd like to put it to any of the witnesses to comment a bit on the peculiar situation that I think we're being put in. It's a bill that does something that every one of you is asking us to do, and yet some are asking us to oppose it. Does anyone have any comments on that?
4:40 p.m.
Campaigner, International Fund for Animal Welfare
I'll make a quick comment and pass it on to the others.
I think the concern we all have right now is that we have been trying for so long, for 10 years, to update this bill. We look at this as our first chance since the legislation was enacted in 1892, which was 116 years ago. It's taken us 10 years to get this far. The concern is that we won't have that chance again, the way there is on other bills, so we want something that is effective, enforceable, and modern now to protect animals.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Chair, I want to hear the other comments, but this is part of where the reasoning breaks down a bit. I don't know whether or not some people are under the impression that if we defeat Bill S-203, that defeat somehow brings another bill on animal cruelty closer to fruition. It doesn't. Whether we pass Bill S-203 or whether it is defeated really has no bearing on whether someone introduces, or whether we in the future debate, more animal cruelty legislation. I hope everyone understands that if this bill is defeated, that fact doesn't mean that all of a sudden something else passes.
I can see the frustration, that people for decades have wanted to see a change. Now we're at the point where we're debating a piece of legislation, but we're not debating everything. There's nothing before us to debate at the moment; all we can do in this committee is decide whether we increase the penalty for animal cruelty or decrease it.
If there were a bill before the committee saying let's lower the penalty for animal cruelty, I think every one of you would be here saying you oppose that, and I would oppose it. Yet we have a bill before us saying let's raise the penalty, and people who would be opposed to lowering it are also opposed to raising it. That's what's a little ironic in all of this.
I will get the other comments, but I want you to comment in that light--that unless there's some procedural thing I don't know about, this bill's passing or failing has no bearing on future legislation dealing with animal cruelty.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Ms. Cartwright and the remaining witnesses will have to put their comments quickly to the floor because we don't have much time left.
4:40 p.m.
Campaign Manager, International Fund for Animal Welfare
Thank you very much, Mr. Moore.
I just want to be clear on behalf of IFAW that we do not support Bill S-203 at all, period. I think that's an important distinction, because it is getting clouded with the other bills. We're not favouring or talking outside of it. We are saying that Bill S-203 is an ineffective piece of legislation that will do nothing to increase the protection for animals in Canada, and our goal is to increase the protection for animals in Canada—all animals.
4:45 p.m.
Manager, Government Relations, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
As you might imagine, I don't agree with Ms. Cartwright's perception of the bill. We support Bill S-203. We understand exactly what you're dealing with here. It is a simple, straightforward piece of legislation that is before you.
The other bill, Bill C-373, is not before you at this time, and obviously we're all going to have a chance at some point in time to have that discussion. Today we're here to discuss this particular bill, and we support it because it does move the yardsticks.
4:45 p.m.
Program Director, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
I totally agree that this committee is in a difficult spot because you can only consider one of them at a time. The reality is, though, that while you said it's true that we can have another bill and that it happens with gun crimes and other things, it is not easy to get Parliament's attention for animal cruelty crimes or animal issues. Back in the day when we had a Liberal government that was very supportive of this issue, it still didn't make it a high enough priority that it got passed. I think that's part of the problem: animal crimes are just not taken as seriously as perhaps some other issues in society.
I would suggest that if we were to pass this bill, it would be far more difficult to bring in another bill, simply because at least something has been done; whereas if this bill dies, I'm far more confident that there will be another bill, because this issue is so important to so many people.
So I suggest that actually it would be more effective if this bill died; there would be a much greater chance that we'll get a good bill then.
4:45 p.m.
Chief Inspector, Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
In the interest of time, I think I'm just going to say that I agree with Ms. MacDonald's comments.
4:45 p.m.
Acting General Manager, Canadian Professional Rodeo Association
We're in support of Bill S-203. I do not know everything about Parliament, I'll guarantee you, but I think from what I've been led to believe, we can go forward with different legislation in the future. That's why we feel this one works currently and there are things that will work in the future.
4:45 p.m.
Project Director, Canadian Association for Humane Trapping
Again in the interest of time, CHT agrees with the comments of the Canadian Federation.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
I have limited time, and I have a number of things I want to get through, so maybe you could answer in that light.
First to Mr. Coghill, would it be a fair statement to say that if you can't get a conviction, it doesn't matter what the penalty is?
4:45 p.m.
Chief Inspector, Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies
Absolutely.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Would it also be fair—and I've had the opportunity to talk with a lot of SPCA officers—to say they're extremely frustrated; that the language that exists today and what exists, frankly, in Bill S-203 is really the same situation; and that the frustration would be the same, and they would continually see cases of abuse that they want to be able to prosecute and Canadians want them to be able to prosecute, but that they just can't prosecute, either under Bill S-203 or under the existing situation?