Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-17. I have several concerns with the bill which as the official opposition we are obligated to bring forward.
One of the issues facing us in this bill, among other bills brought into the House of Commons, is the fact that it is basically an omnibus bill. It contains many changes. Some are technical amendments. Some affect the Firearms Act. Some affect the criminal code, and so on and so forth.
We have talked about this numerous times in the House of Commons. Once again I advise the government that when bills are brought into the House it would be far better if they were simpler, more understandable bills, each dealing with an issue that can be tackled as an issue isolated unto itself.
The items directed for change are good changes. I will go through what I agree with and what I do not.
As my colleague opposite indicated, there is obviously reason for concern among some groups. He also indicated that those concerns were not that serious and that there may be some misunderstandings about the bill. The fact is, if the changes and aspects of the bill are unclear, he knows full well what will happen. The lawyers and the legal industry will get it and once again our legislation will be developed in the courtroom.
It is important to understand that we have to make changes to the legislation in that area. We will be looking for these changes in committee. If we do not receive those changes or at least clarifications so that the legal industry does not play with this in the courtrooms, then my opinion on the bill may very well change.
At this point there are three main provisions in the bill. The first is that it amends the criminal code by consolidating animal cruelty offences for brutally or viciously killing an animal or abandoning one. It will no longer be a property crime. I do not think there is much disagreement in the House as to whether or not that is necessary. It certainly is in this day and age. We have seen time and time again where cruelty to animals seems to go unattended to by the courts. It has been basically a misdemeanour up until now. I commend the government for that action. I agree with it.
The bill also creates the offence of disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer. I wish this would have been a subject unto itself in legislation because there is more to this than just that aspect of it. However, I commend the government for that aspect of the legislation, as it is truly necessary. I know the police forces and peace officers appreciate this kind of action coming from the House of Commons.
The amendments to the Firearms Act are incorporated by expanding the class of prohibited handguns that are grandfathered and modifying the employee licensing requirements. I think that as well has been accepted and taken with a fair bit of understanding and appreciation.
Let us look at what is really new in the bill under those three categories. The bill raises the penalty for intentional cruelty to animals from the current six months to five years. That is an upward limit. There is no minimum penalty, which in a way is too bad. I think minimum penalties also enhance legislation, not just maximums. When we go into the courts of this land, maximum penalties are seldom applied.
I might add, however, that in my long time spent looking at issues such as conditional sentences, I have seen many cases where women have been sexually assaulted and their attackers have received conditional sentences, sentences of much less than the current sentence the government is proposing for cruelty to animals.
I should say to the government that when we look at it from that perspective, I would suggest that the government should go back and look at conditional sentences. It should try to take the action whereby violent offenders cannot get conditional sentences. When we look at it in perspective, with cruelty to animal bills everyone will understand and appreciate that there has to be some kind of comparison for the time and the crime.
The current legislation lifts the cap on the fine, which is currently at $2,000. I do not think the legislation as I understand it identifies whether or not there is an upward limit to that or whether the dollar values of the fines are open. We will be asking the following question when it comes to committee: is the level of fine open-ended or designated? I would like the parliamentary secretary's comments on that.
There is a potential for a lifetime ban from owning an animal for those convicted of cruelty to animals. I like that. I think it is about time that we set some standard in this country. I can recall case after case in British Columbia where people have mistreated animals. In fact sometimes many animals have been mistreated in one place not just one animal. These people have had more animals within their care shortly afterward. That was wrong. In one case that I recall, it was the second time around for an individual in British Columbia when he was again caught by the SPCA for brutality to animals.
Those found guilty of cruelty to an animal now have to pay the bill for the vet services to treat the animal. This is a great move. However, I want to put some relevance back into this and into other legislation. In this case we are holding responsible an individual who has been convicted of being cruel to animals for the cost, for the responsibility of trying to fix the situation by fixing the animal.
When we talk about the Young Offenders Act, for instance, we say “Where it is applicable, why not hold parents accountable for the damages caused by the young offender?” The government virtually panics when we talk about this. Yet if an animal has been hurt, the government turns around and says that it will hold the people responsible for its injuries. Consistency in the House in government legislation would be more appropriate, and the government should look at that.
The bill acknowledges that animals have feelings and are deserving of legal protection from negligence or abuse, which I think we can agree with.
It is a separate criminal offence to take away or to attempt to take away a police officer's weapon and it is punishable by imprisonment, to a maximum of five years. I agree with that, but I think minimum sentencing should be put into the legislation. I know that historically in our courtrooms the minimum sentences come out of those kinds of convictions. I would not like to see legislation like this go to waste. If such a situation does occur, and it does occur, as my colleagues across the way said, it should not go to waste on a conditional sentence, on a suspended sentence or on a one year sentence. I would suggest to the government that it put a minimum in place.
The legislation will adjust employee licensing requirements in order to better reflect appropriate firearms safety training for employees who handle restricted and prohibited firearms as opposed to non-restricted firearms. I think that is good as well. I do not think there would be much argument with that.
Who likes the bill? It would be difficult to find any pet owner who would disagree with it. The SPCA and organizations like that have been long awaiting such legislation. I am sure the police will be happy. Cruelty to animals should have been a crime some time ago. It is good to bring in this legislation on the eve of an election, but I doubt very much if it will receive royal assent before the election. Let us just hope that when the government brings in a useful bill like this we go all the way with it before an election takes place. The police will get more protection, which they need.
Who does not like the bill and why? It is the job of the official opposition to find out who does not like the bill.
The groups that have approached us and said they do not like this bill include: Fur Institute of Canada, the Canadian Outdoor Heritage Alliance, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Western Stock Growers Association, Ontario Farm Animal Council and Canadian Property Rights Research Institute. Why do they not like the bill? My colleague across the way has alluded to the fact that some groups are unhappy. I think that is the case in this situation, where we have to register wider unhappiness, go to committee and give these groups some assurance that they will be protected.
While the parliamentary secretary did say “Yes, they are protected. There have never been any problems before so there will not be any problems in the future”, he has already said that there are some misunderstandings about the bill. I know from past and personal experience that when this gets into a courtroom the legal industry will have a field day with it unless it is made clear.
Let us look at the concerns. The genesis of the changes to the cruelty to animals legislation is to no longer treat cruelty to animals as a property crime. The new provision would move cruelty to animals to part V of the criminal code under sexual offences, which would be renamed sexual offences, public morals, disorderly conduct and cruelty to animals.
Animal cruelty provisions are currently contained in sections 444 to 446 of part XI of the criminal code. This section of the criminal code protects a person from being convicted of an offence if he acted with legal justification of excuse, colour or right. Agricultural groups, anglers' and hunters' groups, and the Fur Council of Canada want cruelty to animals to remain in sections 444 to 446. They fear that by moving the cruelty section to sexual offences it will make it easier for them to be prosecuted. They argue that those who lawfully and legitimately harvest animals for business will not be protected if the cruelty section is changed.
I am no expert on that aspect of the criminal code and, thankfully, I am not a lawyer, but as a layperson in the House of Commons and as opposition justice critic, I know that when those issues go before the courts it will one day be the case of an individual harvesting animals who will say “I told you so way back when. Why did you not make it clear?” Therefore, we will be moving an amendment at committee stage to have animal cruelty provisions maintained in sections 444 to 446 or to make the necessary changes to section 182(1) to comply with the concerns of farmers, hunters, agricultural groups, the fur trade and others who harvest animals.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to take note of that. I would appreciate the parliamentary secretary getting back to us to determine whether or not he feels the scenario I have laid out in the House of Commons is applicable and accurate.
The second point on the cruelty to animals section of Bill C-17 that causes concern is the amendment to the bill that proposes to take out the words wilful and wilfully as a defence if a person is charged. This would make prosecution easier but not proper in many instances where one is involved in the legitimate slaughter of animals or the raising of animals for legitimate use or harvesting. If the words wilful and wilfully are removed, this would leave the requisite of criminal intent for animal cruelty undefined and thus would leave legitimate animal harvesters in jeopardy.
I almost sound like a lawyer. Heaven forbid.
We will be moving an amendment at committee stage to ensure legitimate individuals involved in animal operations are not unduly subject to criminal intent. In all seriousness I would suggest again to the parliamentary secretary that the issue be looked at, because unless we are satisfied that this issue is not a legitimate concern, and at this point we are not, we will not be moving ahead with the bill.
A third part of the bill that causes legitimate animal operations concern is the amendment which proposes that criminal intent for animal cruelty can be simply civil negligence. Agricultural groups would like to see the terms wilful neglect or marked departure from the exercise of reasonable care maintained, not something like civil negligence, which could be used to prosecute farmers trying to carry out normal farming operations and cattle management, et cetera.
Mr. Speaker, you will hear more today about that aspect from people who are farmers. They can put much more practical conversation into the bill because they live with these concerns day in and day out. These are not concerns of just one or two farmers; these are concerns of farmers within associations and of the associations themselves.
We will introduce an amendment at committee stage to ensure there is recognition of the need to protect legitimate farm operators from prosecution.
The fourth part of Bill C-17 is of concern. Under what is called animal care provisions, the bill proposes convictions when there is any pain, suffering or injury to an animal. Currently the criminal code prohibits unnecessary pain. It is only common sense that removing the word unnecessary could open up a whole area for conviction. As some have pointed out, putting a worm on a hook could become a problem for fishermen. This is unrealistic and too open to interpretation to prosecution.
One has only to look at one's own interpretation of what is realistic and unrealistic. When we talk about unnecessary pain, animals cannot really identify unnecessary pain. That is determined by individual people. The concern, and rightfully so, of these groups is whether or not their operations will be questioned by many others about what is unnecessary pain. Will it next be that farmers, hunters and anglers are in courtrooms defending themselves, at very large expense, on the question of unnecessary pain?
In committee we will move an amendment to re-establish the word unnecessary to protect anglers and others who are conducting a sporting activity. I know the government will want to avoid this by saying “Do not worry, trust us, this has never happened before”. However, when the government opens up a new bill for amending legislation, the slate is basically clean and we start off at a new day. When such words as unnecessary pain are removed or reintroduced, the question comes up in the courtroom.
The fifth area of concern is the provision in Bill C-17 which states that anyone who kills an animal or, being the owner, permits an animal to be killed brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately, is guilty of a criminal offence. This part is very subjective and is open to too much latitude. This part is ambiguous and must be defined more clearly. We will move an amendment in committee to remove any ambiguity in this area.
I do not think this in any way, shape or form is paranoia on behalf of any group. These are legitimate concerns.
One thing I opened with is the difficulties and complexities with omnibus bills. There are many things in the bill we support, but because of the ambiguity and the size of the bill, rather than us right up front saying great job, good job, there are some complexities in the bill that some groups are concerned about.
I would ask the same thing as my colleague the parliamentary secretary asked, that all members of the House work together in committee to make sure that these concerns are taken care of. Let us not leave it to the courtrooms of our country. It has never been an acceptable way to do it.
There you have it, Mr. Speaker, some suggestions and comments, some ideas on legislation that goes a long way in my mind to helping with a serious problem in any country, and that is cruelty to animals, and with another problem, that of protecting our police. One area that has to be looked after is the area of insecurities and concerns of those who feel this legislation may draw them into a nightmare in the courtroom. I am sure the government does not want that. I am sure my colleagues want reassurance that it will not happen.
In one way I would like to say to the government, not a bad job after seven years in office. It is not a bad job considering that an election will probably be called before this bill gets royal assent. Perhaps we can bring this bill in after the election without the complexities the government has put into it.
On two fronts of the bill I commend the government. However, I do insist that the insecurities of those who have legitimate concerns be dealt with in committee. There will be a very tight scrutiny of the bill there.