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.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I think there's unanimous consent offered here to proceed in this fashion.
Those in favour of the noted--
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
The Bloc is proposing three types of amendments. The first redefines negligence-based offences, setting the test as that of the reasonable man in the same circumstances. The second imposes on recidivists a lifelong ban on owning animals. The third addresses not only bans, but specifies that offences can be committed against both animals that one owns and stray animals. Those are our three main amendments.
Then we have the consequential amendments, and I suggest that we apply a single vote to all of the amendments.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you, M. Ménard.
Mr. Comartin, for your information, if we were to proceed in this fashion we would not be proceeding with amendment NDP-4.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
NDP
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you.
Okay, the question is on the Bloc amendments as noted.
[Amendments negatived (See Minutes of Proceedings)]
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I'm going to propose, Mr. Chair, that we do the same thing with NDP-2, NDP-3, and NDP-4. It's obvious from the votes that we've taken up to this point that both the Conservatives and the Liberals, in spite of protestations they've made in the past, are in fact not in favour of Bill C-50 anymore. So I would move all of those. If you want to take a quick glance, I already explained each one of them when I moved NDP-1.
I will just quickly say that one of them, NDP-2, is to take away the lawful excuse defence that's provided in that section. NDP-3 doesn't go as far as NDP-1 did but would have expanded our ability to get at fighting by animals. NDP-4 is introducing the concept of negligence in a much more limited way than NDP-1 did.
But I would ask for support on each one, as a group.
Can we have a roll call on that, Mr. Chair, if it's agreed that we're going to do them all at once?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
We'll get to them in a moment. They've been duly moved by Mr. Comartin—that's amendment NDP-2—and that vote applies to amendments NDP-3 and NDP-4.
Mr. Bagnell.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you.
I'm just speaking once today, because I didn't want to say the same thing before every amendment.
It's not really true what Mr. Comartin says about other members here, because he can't say what other members are supporting. We're not even debating that particular bill.
I'll tell you the reasons I'm not voting for any of the amendments today. There are some very good amendments, and I support them actually, in theory, in a perfect world. I mean, the things about cock fighting and dog fighting are ridiculous. With today's legislation, there are people getting off who shouldn't. There are a lot of really good amendments from previous bills that should be in. The reality of the situation is that tens of thousands of Canadians have been asking for stronger penalties and for something to happen.
In the political situation we're in, we're very close to a potential election. This bill obviously doesn't do all those things I'd like and that many members of the committee from all sides have said they would like. If this were a different time, you'd certainly have a totally different result in these debates.
This bill does do some things, and I think the Department of Justice member, one of our witnesses, outlined that there have been hundreds of convictions in Canada, but with those convictions, the options for penalties have been very small.
When the previous bills, like Bill C-50 or its precursors, were presented by Justice, they said that one of the major objectives was to increase penalties. This particular bill increases penalties tenfold in some cases. One of the witnesses provided charts showing where we stand in the world. We'd go from being one of the worst countries in the world to being one of the best in that regard.
The second benefit increase was to add hybrid offences, hybrid summary offences. The person from Justice, the expert, said that this was a major change.
Third, it has something that I've always wanted in whatever bill we had, which is restitution. Humane Societies don't have a lot of money. They have to care for these animals during this time. Whoever does this has the possibility of being paid for this by the offender.
Obviously it doesn't do a lot of the things we want it to do, but we're in a political situation in which the government is bringing forward all sorts of reasons for confidence motions that would cause an election. We will have a budget within, I think, four working days, which the NDP has already said they're voting against. There's a good possibility that we may be in an election. And as everyone knows, during an election everything dies. If we amend this bill and make some of these good amendments, then it goes back to a process in the Senate, which certainly wouldn't be done in four days. I don't know what their processes are.
For all those tens of thousands of people who want increased penalties, I couldn't possibly have a bill before me.... As I've always said to people over the years we've been debating this, anything that will reduce animal cruelty, I'll vote for. There are more things that have to be done, but I couldn't possibly vote against part of the pie when we have that possibility.
In the political scenario we're actually in, in real time, it's questionable whether we'll even get this through. If we make amendments, it'll slow it down and make it far less likely that we'll get anything done, and we'll be in the same situation as we've been in since the 1800s.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
As much respect as I have for Mr. Bagnell and the rest of the members of this committee, I just can't believe this strategy is one that you think will sell if we in fact do have an election.
Today you were given the opportunity to do two things: bring this legislation up to date and send a message to the Senate that we're not going to let an undemocratic, irresponsible group dictate to us. You're forgoing both those possibilities. I can tell you that this is the message I'm going to be giving when I'm out on the hustings if we in fact have an early election.
Let's assume that we don't have an early election. The reality is that you could pass this and could have passed my first amendment, which would have been to update the whole legislation. You both have indicated repeatedly, and I'm referring to the government side and the official opposition, that you're generally in support.
If we don't have an election, there would be time. Maybe we again could have the government and all the opposition parties saying to the Senate that we're the democratically elected body in this government, that we're the ones who make the decisions. Are they going to turn us down a third time? If they are, then maybe it's finally time we get enough backbone to abolish them.
That's the message we need to send. We're not doing that by caving in to them.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Thank you, Mr. Comartin.
I'll call the question on NDP-2, NDP-3, and NDP-4.
I'm sorry, Mr. Comartin, did you want a recorded vote?