Justice Committee on Feb. 14th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I call the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 30, 2007, Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals) is under debate.

On our list of witnesses for today is Mr. Mark Holland, MP; and the World Society for the Protection of Animals, Melissa Tkachyk, programs officer; along with the Department of Justice, Karen Markham, counsel for criminal law policy section.

Please note, witnesses and members, that the time for the conclusion of these presentations and questions would be 4:15 p.m.

So I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Holland.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to appear today.

I'm going to start off with four reasons that I believe this committee should defeat this bill. I think they're clear reasons and I hope the committee will consider them.

The first is that the House has actually already--and I'm talking about the House of Commons--passed the same bill that I've introduced, Bill C-373, on two separate occasions. This was done so unanimously, with all-party support. It was the product of an enormous amount of compromise. Members will recall that at that period of time it was very difficult to bring together both those who are involved in animal welfare and those who are involved in the use of animals towards a point of consensus. We got so close that all parties agreed and it passed the House of Commons, and we sent that legislation, effectively the same legislation I have before you today, twice to the Senate.

So why is that relevant to this bill? Because the Senate is telling us today what is possible in this bill. They are rejecting what the House has sent to them twice and have sent something back that is totally ineffective.

That brings me to my second point; that is, to pass an animal cruelty law that has every major animal welfare group opposed to it makes no sense. How in the world we could pass something that every single major animal welfare group is opposed to makes no sense at all. I don't understand how we could possible explain that to our constituents. I'm not talking about people who are involved in animal rights; I'm talking about people who are involved on the front lines of dealing with animal abuse. I'm talking about humane societies and veterinarians who, day in and day out, see terrible, egregious abuse against animals, and they say it's time to put an end to it. They recognize that if you merely increase sentences, it does nothing for the fact that we can't get convictions.

That's the problem--people aren't being convicted. Only one-quarter of 1% of animal abuse complaints results in a conviction. You heard from an SPCA officer here just a couple of weeks ago who talked about how impossible it is to enforce today's existing laws.

The other great tragedy, of course, is that not only do we see these terrible abuses happening to animals, but we see that same abuse of animals then translating into abuse against human beings, violence against human beings. That was one of the reasons this committee heard that in Florida they had a campaign that said, if you can stop animal abuse by reporting it early, you can possibly stop spousal abuse, or abuse in the home. So we have to remember the linkage there—even if we don't care about animals, and I'm sure we all do around this table—that this has towards violence against human beings. I'm sure we all want the opportunity to be able to stop violence early.

The third is Senator Bryden's own comments, both before this committee and elsewhere, in which he said he would not support Bill C-373. If this was merely a step along the path to finally doing something, even though the House of Commons has already said we already have effective animal cruelty legislation, then we would expect the senator to say, well, maybe with some minor revisions we can accept what the House has already passed twice. I know that the government, as an example, is not accepting this with Bill C-2. They want the Senate to pass it immediately. Crime is extremely important. It needs to be dealt with immediately. The Senate shouldn't be telling the House what it should do; it should be dealing with the matter post-haste. Yet when it comes to animal cruelty, there's the application of a very different standard. Even though we've sent legislation to the Senate twice, we are somehow letting the Senate dictate to us what is possible and what should be done.

The fourth comment I would make is the overwhelming outpouring from Canadians. In front of me here are thousands upon thousands of signatures that were received just in the last month that I'll soon be presenting to the House. I had a Conservative member approach me last week with 2,300 signatures from his own riding of individuals who oppose this Senate bill and support Bill C-373. There are over 130,000 signatures that have been attained in a formal format, such as this, calling for the defeat of this Senate bill and for the passage of effective animal cruelty legislation, such as the legislation that the House of Commons has already passed and that is before us again. On Facebook there are thousands upon thousands of members, and there are people everywhere clamouring and calling for something very simple; that is, to update our animal cruelty laws.

The passage of this bill, which only deals with sentencing, will mean that the international embarrassment that is Canada's animal cruelty laws will continue. Today we are behind the Philippines. We are a third world nation when it comes to our animal cruelty laws. This bill would do nothing to fix that.

I would ask that members have the courage to stand up for what the House has already supported, to stand up for the legislation the duly-elected members of the House of Commons have already stood for, and to say to the Senate, enough is enough, it's time to pass effective animal cruelty legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Holland.

I'd like to turn to Melissa Tkachyk from the World Society for the Protection of Animals.

The floor is yours.

[Melissa Tkachyk, Programs Officer, , World Society for the Protection of Animals (Canada)]

Thank you, Chair and honourable members, for allowing me this opportunity to speak about an issue that is of utmost importance to the World Society for the Protection of Animals, and to Canadians.

WSPA is the world's largest international alliance of animal welfare organizations. We work in partnership with more than 850 organizations in 170 countries. Our global partners include the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the American Humane Association, the American SPCA, and many others. WSPA holds consultative status with the United Nations and observer status with the Council of Europe. We work to improve animal welfare standards around the world through field work and advocacy.

WSPA Canada is based in Toronto. We are a Canadian charity and have more than 30,000 supporters across the country, and hundreds of thousands worldwide. If one takes into account the supporters of our member societies in Canada, we represent the voices of over 200,000 Canadians.

WSPA joins its member societies, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Ontario SPCA, and other international groups, such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare, in opposing Bill S-203. It is suggested that this bill was introduced to improve the protection of animals, yet not a single animal protection group in the country supports it. We oppose this bill because it is not an effective improvement to the current animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code, which haven't been significantly revised, as you know, since first enacted in 1892. This antiquated bill does not address the deficiencies in the current legislation, which allow so many animal abusers to slip through the cracks unpunished.

As you know, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies was already before this committee. They've calculated that less than 1% of animal abuse complaints made across the country lead to a conviction. Bill S-203 increases sentencing penalties; this is the only change it makes. We do not support this bill because we do not believe these increases are very useful if law enforcement officers are unable to prosecute animal abusers in the vast majority of cases. What difference does increasing penalties make if offenders cannot be successfully prosecuted?

Bill S-203 requires the court to prove that someone wilfully intended to neglect an animal. We have heard from SPCAs across the country that the burden of proof is too high, and that it is one of the main reasons so few complaints about animal abuse lead to convictions under the Criminal Code. Prosecutors have not been able to convict people who have starved their animals, because they cannot prove that the owners intended to cause harm, even though any reasonable person knows that animals, like people, need food daily and suffer when they are hungry, and that an emaciated body clearly indicates that an animal has been starved for a long period of time. The inactions or actions of the offender should be sufficient to convict them in these cases.

We believe the language in Bill C-373 makes this offence much clearer and will, therefore, improve conviction rates in cases of neglect.

Bill S-203 does not make it an offence to breed, train, or sell animals to fight each other to death, so long as the person is not found actually present at the fight. I'm sure you understand that illegal blood sports are not exactly publicized. Dog fighting should be prohibited as explicitly as cock fighting is in this bill. It is our submission that training dogs to fight and being in possession of dog-fighting equipment should both be prohibited. We believe this is necessary to crack down on the people who are participating in and encouraging this brutal blood sport. Great Britain's Animal Welfare Act takes it even further by making it an offence to profit, publicize, and promote any animal fighting.

Like the antiquated legislation currently in force, Bill S-203 provides less protection for unowned animals, even though stray, feral, and wild animals suffer just the same. So it's not an offence to kill, maim, poison, or wound unowned animals without a reason or a lawful excuse. It is legal now, and would continue to be legal, to beat a stray dog with a baseball bat, so long as the dog dies quickly. WSPA strongly believes that all sentient animals should be equally protected from being killed, maimed, poisoned, or wounded, in addition to being protected from suffering and neglect.

If the government is serious about tackling crime to build stronger and safer communities in Canada, it should not ignore the strong relationship between crimes against animals and crimes against people. Research shows that people who abuse animals are more likely to commit future acts of violence against people. Some of the most notorious serial killers abused animals before they murdered people. Their first crimes against animals should have served as an early warning that they were predisposed to harming people next.

The government has the opportunity to pass effective legislation that not only addresses animal abuse effectively, but can also help stop a cycle of violence in our communities. I do believe that if people are taught to respect the sanctity of animal life, it will contribute to the respect for the sanctity of human life as well.

I have summarized our main concerns with this bill, but there are many other problems, which I won't elaborate on, including the fact that it retains the illogical categorization of animals and the strange definition for cattle that is currently in the Criminal Code. As well, Bill S-203 still distinguishes animals as property, and it categorizes offences against them as property offences. Unlike inanimate objects, animals have the capacity to feel pain and suffer. Since their sentience is why we have legislation to protect them, this very basic fact should be reflected in the language of the law and how these types of offences are labelled and how the offender is punished.

Your committee has heard a lot of unfounded hysterical fears that the amendments animal protection groups support, such as those that are in Bill C-373, will somehow affect the right to hunt, trap, and go fishing. Some stakeholders have accused this bill's opponents of having an ulterior motive, such as an underlying animal rights agenda. Comments like these are absolutely absurd.

WSPA and the many other groups that are supporting Bill C-373 are simply advocating for legislation that effectively protects animals from horrific acts of cruelty, abuse, and neglect. Amendments like the one Bill C-373 proposes strikes a great balance between effectively convicting and punishing those who abuse animals, while protecting those who legally use animals.

During his deputation to your committee, Senator John Bryden acknowledged that his bill dealt only with one part of the problem, but that additional amendments should be made later. The committee is therefore being asked to pass deficient legislation on the grounds that some stakeholders would be uncomfortable with the changes sought by other stakeholders. Should we not be asking instead whether there is any validity to their concerns? If these stakeholders are concerned that the right to use animals is not adequately protected, then the solution, I would think, is not to maintain loopholes in the law, but to clarify the rights of these groups.

WSPA would gladly support this bill if it could be amended to resemble Bill C-373, which is essentially the same bill as the previous bills, Bill C-50, Bill C-15B, Bill C-10, which were twice passed by the House of Commons. Those bills were based on nearly 10 years of consultation, received broad-based support--that's support from all different groups that use animals, including support from all political parties--and also received strong public support.

This bill is clearly flawed if people who starve animals to death, bash stray dogs with bats, and train dogs to fight can slip through the cracks unpunished. This bill does not address the current loopholes, archaic language, and inadequacies in the original legislation. It retains them.

Bill S-203 does not deliver what Canadians are demanding from their government. Canadians do not view animals in the same way as people did in the Victorian era. They want modern, effective, and enforceable legislation that protects animals from reckless acts of cruelty. We have waited a long time for strong legislation to protect animals, but I'm afraid the proposal that is before your committee right now is just not worth that wait.

On behalf of WSPA, I'm asking you today to oppose Bill S-203. It's taken more than 100 years to make changes to our animal cruelty law. Let's make sure the new legislation is worth the wait.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you.

Ms. Markham.

[Karen Markham, Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

I have been asked to come as a resource for the answering of questions on the law, etc., as opposed to making a formal presentation.

I might just indicate that I've been a criminal lawyer for 26 years, and part of that experience was as a crown prosecutor. That may be of some interest.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you. We will probably be calling upon you at some time during the question period.

We will go to questions then.

Mr. St. Amand.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have a question or two, perhaps to you, Mr. Holland, or you, Ms. Tkachyk.

First, thanks for your presentations.

Would it not be of some comfort to you, limited though it might be, to at least see Bill S-203 passed? Based on the fact, and it's well established, that harsher penalties serve as some deterrent to wrongdoers, would it not move the yardsticks along, advance your noble cause of protecting animals? Would it not move the yardsticks to some extent if, however flawed you may view this bill, it was passed?

[Melissa Tkachyk]

I don't think it's very effective to increase penalties if it doesn't deal with the very root of the problem, which is that the vast majority of animal abuse complaints don't lead to a conviction. In that regard, no, I think this bill is too flawed--it's riddled with flaws--and it's not a good starting ground for making further amendments later.

As well, as a campaigner, I know that it's very difficult to get amendments addressed later. It will likely be less of a political priority. It's very difficult once an issue has been dealt with, even partially, to get further amendments down the road.

I hope you can understand as well that if you look at the pace of change on our animal cruelty law in Canada, we had something first enacted in 1892 and small changes made in the mid-1950s. I don't want to be here in 2060—I will, but I don't want to be—debating another small change, and that is our concern. It's far too slow. We've waited so long. Let's make it right.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Holland.

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

Thank you, Mr. St. Amand.

It's a fair question, and the answer to the question would be no. It would be not only of no comfort, but for somebody who has worked on this, worked very closely with Mr. Cotler, who was the justice minister in the last Parliament, I would see it as being a very sad day if we were to pass it, for the following reasons.

The point was just made that this does nothing to address the fact that we can't get convictions, that every day people know they can get away with animal abuse because they have legislation that allows them to do it. Making the sentences stronger when they know they can never get convicted isn't going to do anything.

Worse than that, it sends the wrong message. It sends two messages that are wrong. The first one it sends is that we're doing something about animal cruelty when we're not. We're saying to people that we're increasing sentences and we're getting tough on animal cruelty. When you've had people who are on the front lines, people like the SPCA officer who is the chief for Ontario and responsible for Ontario, say to you that they can't get convictions today and that they're deeply frustrated every day, and when we have veterinarians who see case after case that can't be prosecuted.... Being behind the Philippines with third world legislation just isn't good enough, and if we pass that, we simply entrench it.

The worst part of it is that we send a message to the Senate when we had already said...we wouldn't do this on any other issue. Can you imagine any other issue where the House of Commons sent essentially the same bill twice to the Senate, and then the Senate sends something back that's infinitely weaker, and we accept the argument from the Senate as well that it's the best you can get? Are we going to allow the Senate to dictate to us, an elected House, that the best we can get is something so watered down that every animal welfare group in the country opposes it?

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

As a matter of practicality, Bill C-373 passes at the House of Commons, we don't know when, but we're perhaps talking months before it passes. On a practical basis, what assurance or insight do you have that triggers a new confidence that the Senate will pass Bill C-373?

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

I think if the House sends the same bill three times to the Senate, it becomes very hard to turn it down. It becomes much easier if you've passed an extremely weak bill and you can hold it out as a smoke screen, “Oh, we've already done something on animal cruelty, that's why we're not accepting your bill”. The senator said it himself. He said that one of the reasons we are so concerned about this bill getting passed is that we would lose the lever. He's right. To a large degree we would lose the lever. That's a big concern, because we would see animal cruelty legislation that's utterly ineffective.

If you want to talk about something this justice committee could do today, it would be to pass a motion saying adopt immediately the comprehensive animal cruelty legislation this House has already passed twice. Why would we even need any debate? It's already been passed through the House twice. Pass that motion, send it to the House, and say to the government, pass it today.

We've already received unanimous consent for this legislation previously. Why on earth would we need to debate it any longer? Advance it, and that's the way we could advance animal cruelty legislation immediately.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

I have no further questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

It is more of a statement than a question, and I will, of course, be making it in French.

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

That is no problem. Unfortunately, however, my French is not very good. Indeed, it could be said that I have a habit of murdering the French language.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I will resist the temptation to make a joke, Mr. Petit.

Firstly, I would like to congratulate you on the work that you have done as a member of Parliament over the years since you were elected. I know that you have the courage of your convictions and that you have fought hard on this issue. I also believe that this has to be recognized as a considerable improvement on the status quo.

Our party supports the abolition of the Senate. We fully concur with your view that the Senate essentially ran roughshod over democracy when it failed to consider legislation that had been adopted by the House of Commons. The reality, however, is that the bill before us better addresses offences and constitutes an improvement on the status quo. Nevertheless, I accept that it does not go far enough. Were we to carry out a comparative analysis between this bill and your bill in the House tomorrow, there is no doubt that your bill would come out on top.

However, unless I am mistaken, you are 146^th on the list. You know full well that your bill will not be considered by the House in the near, or not-so-near, future. You also know that you will not be granted consent to leapfrog over other colleagues who are higher up the list—to do so would render the system meaningless.

We are tabling amendments similar to those put forward by our colleagues from the NDP. The Bloc and the NDP will be proposing amendments to this bill. We will see how the committee chooses to proceed. We hope that the bill will be amended. It would be a shame for it to not be sent back to the House for report stage and third reading, as it does contain some of your plus points. If, however, that is the will of the committee, we will respect it. If your bill can be considered in the near future, you will have the support of the Bloc Québécois. Of that there is no doubt. We cannot agree with the arguments advanced by certain activists to the effect that if this bill is adopted with amendments, the Senate will not consider your bill. We cannot base our decision on speculation.

Once again, I would like to sincerely congratulate you on the work that you have done. It is said that you are a rising star in the Liberal Party. I am sure you will agree with me that it is not always easy to understand the Liberal Party, but you have worked with conviction, which is admirable. The Bloc will be introducing amendments and hopes that the bill will be adopted with amendments.

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

Thank you for your question, Mr. Ménard. The problem is that the bill does nothing to address cruelty to animals.

If you have 100% of a problem and you can fix 1% of that problem, but you have to entrench all the things that create the other 99%, you're asking me whether you would take that.

I would suggest that's a bad deal. What we're doing is entrenching all the things that give us a problem. Bill S-203 as it exists today entrenches all the things that make our laws third world laws. If you pass this, we're going to exit this House of Commons worse than we started, because we will have passed a placebo motion that people can hold up as a pretence that action was taken. We'll say we passed something; we did something about animal cruelty--

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Have you read the Bloc and NDP amendments? Would you be satisfied, or at least happier, if they were...

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

I would prefer that the bill were defeated.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Even with our amendments?

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

Yes, even with the amendments. I would rather table a motion in the House arguing that it is very important that we immediately adopt a bill on cruelty to animals, such as Bill C-373. The decision is in your hands.

It's important not to think, though, that if you pass this today.... I understand the amendments; I understand where you're coming from and I think they're well-intended, but I think we would be far better served by a motion from this committee that says to pass what the House has already passed, a motion that says to the government to make the same demand of the Senate that you did on Bill C-2.

How is this any less important? It's just as important to deal with crime before it happens as it is to deal with crime afterwards. We have shown time and time again that when it comes to cruelty and violence against human beings, cruelty and abuse to animals is a precursor, so I think we should say the same thing that the government is saying to the Senate about Bill C-2.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I would like to make one last comment, Mr. Holland.