Evidence of meeting #14 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 amendments.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Melissa Tkachyk  Programs Officer, , World Society for the Protection of Animals (Canada)
Karen Markham  Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Yes.

4:10 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Karen Markham

No. The cattle provision is the only indictable offence, and it's a straight indictable offence. All the other offences in that section are summary conviction offences only.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

So what is the change here? What is added here?

4:10 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Karen Markham

It's a fairly significant change in the sense that the bill restructures the offences to some degree and segregates those that are committed wilfully, if you like, from those that involve wilful neglect, and makes the first category of offences hybrid offences and increases the maxima that are available for those offences. Similarly, although the maxima are lower, it increases them from the current provisions. The bill does not, however, change any of the elements of any of the offences or create any new offences.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

On the section on restitution to a person--I don't know if that's the right term, but where you can pay a person or an organization, and I think it's near the end somewhere--is that new? What does that allow?

4:10 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Karen Markham

That is new, and that allows, upon conviction, for the court to be able to order the costs, if they're readily ascertainable, for rescuing or looking after an animal to be, if you like, claimed from the accused.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

So a humane society, for instance, that took care of one of these animals could force the accused to pay for the expenses.

4:10 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Karen Markham

The crown would apply, or the court on its own motion, as I understand it, can make the order.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

This is the last question. What is the change in the penalties?

4:10 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Karen Markham

Regarding the change in the penalties, currently that one offence involving cattle is a straight indictable offence with a penalty, I believe, of five years. All of the other offences currently in the animal cruelty provisions, as I said, are summary conviction offences only, with a maximum penalty of six months or a $2,000 fine.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Is there any change in the fines?

4:10 p.m.

Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice

Karen Markham

Yes. Under the new provisions, the wilful offences carry a maximum fine of $10,000, and the wilful neglect offences carry a maximum fine of $5,000.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

Thank you.

Mr. Holland, do you have a quick comment to make?

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Yes. I don't think I was specific before. I talked generally about what it would entrench. I talked about some of the things that it did, but I didn't talk specifically about what it would entrench.

It would entrench animals as property. It would entrench the term “wilful neglect”, which has been a major problem for those trying to prosecute.

It would entrench the virtually non-existent protection that exists for wild or unknown animals.

It would entrench the ability of people to kill animals brutally or viciously, whether or not they die immediately.

It would entrench not making it illegal to train animals to fight and keep things like Dracula Kennels operating, and it would provide no special protection for the law.

It would entrench all of those things. By passing this law, you're essentially entrenching every one of those things.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

Thank you, Mr. Holland.

We'll go to Mr. Dykstra for one final question.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Thank you. I'll try to be quick.

I will direct this to you, Mark. I have to tell you that I come from a municipality very similar to yours. In fact, a couple of the latest cases certainly have come from my municipality. So there is nobody who wants to see tougher legislation more than I do. I certainly don't always agree with your tactics and how you approach politics. We both have been at this for a long time, coming from city council backgrounds. But the guts of the bill and the essence of what you're trying to accomplish I don't disagree with.

I do have to say that I have amendments to this bill I would love to move forward. I don't think it's a bill that, with all due respect to the senator who is sitting here now, does what we need in this country in terms of taking it to the next level, but at the very least, it's a step in the right direction. If we move amendments here today and defeat the bill, it means we have an archaic piece of legislation from the 1800s with a few minor amendments that were made in the 1950s.

I would submit to you that, as you stated, whether or not you're here after the next election--and I'll say the same thing--I certainly don't think you intend to let this die, if this bill passes today, and I can assure you that I don't intend to let this die. So is it the end? No, it's not the end, because as long as people like you and me are in the House of Commons fighting on behalf of the people who own animals and on behalf of animals in this country, then there is no reason for anyone in this room to believe that we are not going to take this any further.

Some of your own colleagues—and I'm not trying to be partisan here—want to see this pass because at least it gets us one step closer to where we need to be.

Perhaps I would end by allowing you to comment, or getting you to comment on that specific piece.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

Please do so very quickly, Mr. Holland.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Thank you, Mr. Dykstra, and I would say that I appreciate the opinion that you have expressed. I appreciate the legitimacy with which you and many of my own colleagues and others want to do something, and feel that this is something.

I'm just saying that I disagree. I think we are better with nothing. Obviously it's the option of every committee member to do what they feel is best on this issue. I can only offer you my own opinion, and I've tried to lay out, as best I can, why I feel this entrenches a bad situation instead of moving us forward.

My preferred option, if I could just leave you with this, would be to say no and tell the Senate we have already dealt with this, that we've already developed effective legislation, and do the same thing as the government is doing on Bill C-2, which is to say to the Senate, pass it immediately. We've already dealt with this. We have tens and hundreds of thousands of Canadians who want it dealt with now.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

I hear you on Bill C-2. I certainly wish you had stuck around to support us on that one.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

Thank you, Mr. Dykstra.

That brings to a close the questions. We will now proceed directly to clause-by-clause on this particular bill.

I will suspend for a couple of minutes, and then we will get right into clause-by-clause.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

I call the meeting to order.

Now for consideration of clause-by-clause, we'll go directly to NDP-1.

(On clause 1)

Before you get into it, Mr. Comartin, for the benefit of the committee, this particular amendment replaces clause 1 entirely, and if it's adopted, none of the remaining amendments will be able to proceed. However, it would be possible to subamend the amendment before it carried.

Is that clear to all the committee members?

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Are you saying that if we vote for the NDP amendment, we will not be able to address the others? If, however, the amendment were defeated, you would move on to BQ-1.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

Yes.

Mr. Petit.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

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

A point of order. Could you please explain that again?

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Art Hanger

This amendment replaces clause 1 entirely, and if it's adopted, none of the remaining amendments will be able to proceed.