Debates of April 10th, 2002

Request for Emergency Debate

[The Speaker]

The Speaker has carefully considered the request made by the hon. member for Joliette. As the member knows, in recent weeks, the Chair has received several such requests for an emergency debate.

The Speaker believes that, for the time being, this request does not meet the requirements set out in the standing orders of the House.

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, being very new in my position I hope I have this correct. I would like to defer the vote on Bill C-344.

There have been consultations among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent that following the conclusion of tomorrow's debate on Bill C-344 all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill be deemed put, a recorded division demanded and deferred until the end of government orders on Wednesday, April 17, 2002.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar have unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, for the Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the House of Commons about the provisions of Bill C-15B, an act to amend the criminal code, dealing with cruelty to animals and firearms, and the Firearms Act.

Before turning to the substance of the bill, I would first like to acknowledge the very fine work that was conducted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in its careful review. The applause I hear is a worthy statement of how we feel about that work because it did a very careful review of all the provisions in Bill C-15B.

The committee had the benefit of hearing from a wide spectrum of witnesses with a wealth of experience and knowledge. This information assisted the committee in its review and modification of Bill C-15B. I am grateful to the committee for its work in advancing the debate and understanding of the legislation.

Turning now to the content of the bill, I will start with consideration of the animal cruelty provisions.

I am pleased to say that there is overwhelming support for the objective of Bill C-15B to modernize and update the sections of the criminal code dealing with animal cruelty. This objective has three aspects.

The first aspect is to recognize animal cruelty offences for what they are. Animal cruelty offences are crimes of violence. They ought to be treated as such. Their seriousness ought to be reflected in the penalties available for these offences.

The vast majority of Canadians who have voiced their opinion on this subject have made it very clear that they want cruelty offences to be treated more seriously. The public was consistent in its message on this point during the consultations in 1998 when the department solicited views on the current animal cruelty provisions in the criminal code. They have continued to voice their support in increased penalties, as evidenced by the many petitions and letters the Department of Justice and members of parliament have received over the past three years.

The Canadian public is demanding that our laws on animal cruelty be updated and the penalties increased. In this regard, it should be noted that the committee adopted an amendment to raise the maximum fines available for intentional cruelty and criminal neglect offences when prosecuted by summary conviction to $10,000 and $5,000 respectively.

This brings me to the second aspect of modernizing the law on animal cruelty.

In the course of discussions on Bill C-15B, some people have suggested that there is no need to change the current provisions of the code beyond raising the penalties. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the anachronisms and unnecessary complexities of the current law.

In some of the current animal cruelty provisions in the criminal code, the proprietary status of an animal determines whether or not a successful prosecution can be brought, even though the basic policy of the cruelty provisions is to protect all animals from intentional cruelty and criminal neglect. An example of this is section 445 of the criminal code which only applies to animals kept for “a lawful purpose”.

Bill C-15B addresses the unnecessary complexity of the current law. Let me give an example.

It appears that subsection 446(1)(a) of the criminal code is restricted to wilful infliction of unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. This provision however must be read in conjunction with subsection 429(1), which states that wilfully includes recklessly. Further, it is only through reading subsection 446(3) that it is clear that paragraph 446(1)(a) actually creates two offences: one of intentional cruelty and the other of causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury through criminal neglect.

Bill C-15B rids the law of these complexities and anachronisms and clearly sets out two main categories of offences: intentional acts of cruelty and those acts which cause pain, suffering or injury to animals by reason of criminal negligence. The creation of these two categories of offences in Bill C-15B provides clarity in the law in terms of precisely defining the mental and physical elements of the offences. Clarity and precision in the law operate to the benefit of all Canadians.

In the interest of promoting certainty in the law, I would like to note for the record that based on a concern raised by research and industry about the applicable level of criminal intent in one of the criminal neglect provisions the committee adopted an amendment. The amendment specifies that the offence of abandonment must be committed with “wilful or reckless” intent and that all other offences in the criminal neglect section must meet a standard of criminal as opposed to civil negligence.

A third aspect to modernizing the law is to fill a gap in the law. At the present time a person who has a lawful purpose for killing an animal but who does so brutally and viciously cannot be charged with cruelty unless they also cause unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to the animal.

Bill C-15B creates a new offence of intentionally killing an animal brutally or viciously whether or not the animal suffers pain. For example, such conduct could include tying an animal to a railroad track, fastening an explosive device to an animal, or putting an animal in a microwave oven.

In my remarks today I would like to address a point about which there appears to be much confusion. Some members have suggested to the House that if the defences in subsection 429(2) did not exist, industry would be guilty of committing cruelty offences. The main animal cruelty offence of causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury is structured in such a way that industry and research practices are factored into determining whether a cruelty offence has even been committed. This is an extremely important point and I would like to take a few minutes to elaborate on it.

The first part of the analysis in determining whether an offence of causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury has been committed is to examine the lawfulness of the purpose for which the pain was inflicted. On the basis of the recognition of industry and research practices in case law, common law, codes of practice, provincial, territorial and federal legislation and conventions concerning animal use, there is absolutely no question that the use of animals in industry or research always has been and will continue to be legal.

Even if the purpose is legal, the inquiry does not end there. The second issue to examine is whether or not the means used to achieve the purpose imposed avoidable pain, having regard to other means reasonably available “given costs and social priorities” as noted by the court in the leading case on cruelty.

An offence of causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury is only made out if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused inflicted avoidable pain on an animal in these circumstances. This has been the test for liability in the criminal code for this offence since 1953 and it continues to be the test.

The government has stated repeatedly that what is lawful today will remain lawful after Bill C-15B comes into force. It is simply not an accurate statement of the law to suggest that because of subsection 429(2) of the criminal code, industry is effectively exempt from animal cruelty provisions because they have a lawful purpose for inflicting pain, suffering or injury. No one is exempt from the application of the criminal law on animal cruelty. They never have been and they will not be in the future.

Reasonable industry practices are not criminal because they do not meet the threshold of criminal liability and not because they are exempt.

Members of the House may be reassured to know that a witness who appeared before the committee on behalf of the Criminal Lawyers Association stated that it was the view of its members that moving the cruelty provisions out of part XI of the criminal code was appropriate and that no defences were lost to accused persons because of this move.

I have a last word on the issue of defences. Over the past 50 years the defences in subsection 429(2) have never been raised in a reported case involving the intentional infliction of unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. There is an obvious reason for this. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances giving rise to a defence for intentional cruelty offences.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

That is because the defences were there. My goodness. Can you believe this?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

If hon. members would like to participate in the debate, they will get their turn. For the moment, the hon. member for Northumberland has the floor.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Madam Speaker, for example, in respect of cruelty offences which either prohibit conduct outright or which prohibit causing unnecessary pain, suffering or injury, the defence of duress might apply in an exceptional circumstance.

Colour of right, mentioned in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code, has two alternative meanings. In the context of property offences, colour of right is used to justify actions on the basis that the accused had possessory or proprietary rights to the property. Colour of right is referred to in subsection 429(2) because that part of the code deals with property offences.

Case law has also confirmed that the term colour of right is used to denote an honest belief in a state of facts which, if it actually existed, would at law justify or excuse the act done.

The courts have said that when used in this sense colour of right is merely a particular application of the doctrine of mistake of fact. Mistake of fact is a common law defence and all common law defences are preserved by subsection 8(3) of the criminal code.

There is case law that expressly states that even if subsection 429(2) of the criminal code did not apply a defence based on raising a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused had colour of right would be available to an accused at common law.

To make its intent absolutely clear in the application of common law offences to cruelty offences the committee amended Bill C-15B to expressly refer subsection 8(3) of the criminal code. This means that all defences that could possibly be relevant in intentional cruelty and criminal neglect cases are expressly made applicable.

I would like to address one further concern that has been expressed by members of the House. Some members have suggested that the provisions of Bill C-15B would invite animal rights activists to use the criminal courts to challenge industry and research practices or to bring frivolous or vexatious prosecution. Even though there is no evidence that frivolous or vexatious prosecutions have been a problem over the past 50 years I draw the attention of members of the House to the provisions of an omnibus bill which was recently considered and passed by the House and is now returning to the House from the Senate.

Bill C-15A would provide important protections for persons who may be the subject of an information laid by a private individual. Because all of the animal cruelty offences in Bill C-15B are hybrid offences, with the exception of a breach of prohibition or restitution order, they would be subject to procedures for indictable offences.

Bill C-15A would provide that where an information is laid by an individual who is not a public or peace officer the justice who receives the information must refer it to a provincial court judge or a designated justice. In Quebec the relevant judge is a judge of the court of Quebec.

The judge or designated justice who receives the information must hold a hearing at which the attorney general has the right to attend, cross-examine and call witnesses and to present relevant evidence. It is only after this hearing has been held and only if the judge or designated justice considers that the case for issuing a summons or warrant has been made out that the accused would even be brought to court. This procedure would apply to all indictable offences and would offer an effective means by which allegations of animal cruelty made by persons other than public or peace officers could be assessed before a potential accused is put in jeopardy.

I would like to emphasize that there is a greater societal interest which is achieved by treating cruelty to animals more seriously. There is increasing scientific evidence that shows a correlation between animal cruelty and subsequent violence against humans. Our judges, health professionals and law enforcement officers are beginning to recognize and address animal abuse as an aspect of a bigger problem of violence in our society. I ask the House to do the same.

I would like to turn now to the proposed administrative improvement to the firearms program. Canada's firearms program is a practical and common sense approach to gun safety that works to keep firearms from those who should not have them while encouraging safe and responsible gun use by legitimate firearm owners. This is achieved with the licensing of firearm owners and firearm registration. Some of the program's opponents will tell us that targeting Uncle George's duck gun would do nothing to prevent crime. They are just plain wrong.

In 1998, 63% of all female domestic homicide victims were shot with ordinary rifles and shotguns. A further 21% were shot with sawed-off shotguns and rifles. In the home Uncle George's duck gun can have tragic consequences.

Canadians remain steadfast in their support for this public safety initiative. The government's approach to preventing firearm deaths, injuries and crimes is a clear reflection of Canadian values and principles. Poll after poll shows the overwhelming majority of Canadians support gun control and support the important public safety framework of the Firearms Act. In fact, an Environics poll taken late last year showed that the majority of the supporters of all political parties in the House supported the firearms program.

Our national investment in this program is already paying off in terms of public safety benefits and in compliance. Enhanced screening of firearms licence applicants and continuous eligibility screening of licence holders is already leading to safer homes and communities by keeping firearms from those who should not have them.

Since December 1, 1998, over 4,000 licences have been refused or revoked by public safety authorities. The number of revocations is 32 times higher than the total of the--

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could I inquire of the House if it is permissible under parliamentary procedures for a speaker to provide inaccurate and misleading information in the course of making a speech?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

That is a point of debate. When the hon. member has the floor he can debate this issue.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to re-emphasize that through this process the number of revocations is 32 times higher than the total of the previous five years under the old program.

The licensing phase of the program has also produced a very successful compliance rate of about 90%. As we know firearm owners had to apply for a firearms licence by January 1, 2001. Eligible firearm owners who applied by the deadline should now have their firearms licence. We are now dealing with a small percentage of applications that need follow up due to incomplete forms or that require further review for public safety reasons.

We have now turned to the next phase of this important public safety program, the registration of firearms by January 1, 2003. As part of our commitment to facilitate compliance with the firearms program, firearm registration is now easier than ever. On a region by region basis licensed firearm owners have received a personalized registration form in the mail offering a limited time to register their firearms without charge. Another new feature is an online firearm registration process.

Despite the efforts of some opponents of this program to prevent Canadians from registering their firearms the response to these initiatives has been extremely positive. The amendments proposed in Bill C-15B would build on the success of the firearms program to date and the lessons learned, and I admit there have been lessons learned, from the licensing experience.

We are not changing the basic policy goals of the program such as the firearm registration deadline, nor the government's commitment to public safety. Instead, we are putting forth administrative changes that would facilitate compliance with the program and continue to ensure a high level of service to clients. These are a direct response to extensive consultations with program partners and stakeholders, including the policing community, gun owners and other Canadians.

These administrative changes would allow us to simplify the processes and requirements for firearm owners. At the same time it would strengthen the program's contribution to public safety.

Client service and efficiency would be enhanced by designing a more streamlined system. This would include simplifying firearm licence renewals and the registration process. Preprocessing of visitors bringing guns into Canada would also make the border process more efficient.

We would improve efficiency and reduce costs. For example, we intend to balance the workload associated with the program by staggering the firearms licence renewals. This would avoid a surge of applications in a five year cycle pattern.

We would improve the day to day administration of the firearms program by ensuring more direct accountability. We would achieve this by consolidating operational authority under the program through the Canadian firearms commissioner who would report directly to the Minister of Justice.

Other amendments would allow us to enhance border controls when it comes to firearm imports and exports and to meet our commitments under international agreements. This would include the recently finalized United Nations firearms protocol which supports Canadian policies and would be an additional tool in helping to curb the illegal trafficking of firearms.

We have heard and carefully considered the views of various individuals and organizations that appeared before the committee. In its testimony we heard the law enforcement community reaffirm its support for this program and its essential crime fighting tools.

The Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police outlined the significant public safety benefits of this program which combined the screening of applicants, tracking of firearms and minimum mandatory sentencing to help deter, prevent and prosecute firearm crime in Canada.

We have also heard the minister's user group on firearms maintain that these amendments are an important step forward in ensuring a fair balance between the interests of responsible firearm owners and our shared objective of public safety.

In response to specific issues raised, the government has responded with technical amendments that were adopted by the committee. I am confident that these will go a long way toward addressing any lingering concerns.

The government is committed to enhancing the safety of Canadians inside and outside of their homes. The amendments to the Firearms Act included in Bill C-15B will help ensure that the key public safety goals of the Firearms Act are met while ensuring that the administration of the program is more efficient, effective and client friendly.

Both the firearms and cruelty to animals provisions of Bill C-15B are supported by a large majority of Canadians. I urge the House to give this important legislation its final approval.

Business of the House

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been consultation among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, following conclusion of tomorrow's debate on Bill C-344, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill be deemed put, a recorded division demanded and deferred until the end of government orders on Wednesday, April 17.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The House had heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, be read the third time and passed.

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today on Bill C-15B, the legislation dealing with animal cruelty and amendments to the Firearms Act.

I will not get into much detail on the firearms registry other than to say that gun control and the registry are two absolutely different things.

The citizens of this country realize that this registry has been one of the greatest boondoggles we have ever seen in the history of law enforcement. The government has dumped $700 million down the toilet for no apparent public safety purpose. In fact it continues to spend $100 million a year to prosecute duck hunters, farmers and others.

My colleague who just spoke indicated that there are offences occurring in respect of sawed off shotguns. Sawed off shotguns are prohibited. We cannot register sawed off shotguns. The things he said have nothing to do with reality. The only reality that we have seen with this gun registry is to strip frontline police officers of the resources that they need to fight crime effectively.

We on our side will continue to oppose this registry that takes resources away from our frontline police officers and gives jobs to bureaucrats. There is nothing wrong with bureaucrats, I was one for many years, but let us put bureaucrats to good use. I am sure they do not want to be sitting there spending taxpayers money for no apparent valid purpose.

Moving on from the firearms amendments, the most contentious aspects of the bill concern the proposed changes to the animal cruelty sections of the criminal code. I have in fact received hundreds of letters regarding the bill. Letters in favour have been almost exclusively from large urban area such as Toronto and Vancouver and their surrounding areas. The letters opposed have been exclusively from rural areas.

Farmers from my riding of Provencher and from all across Canada are very worried that the legislation and the impact it will have will undoubtedly impact negatively on their livelihood. They are afraid that one day the provisions that we are debating could put them in front of a judge for practices that they, their parents and their grandparents have been carrying out for generations. Many of my constituents perceive this bill as just one more example of how the government has pitted urban Canadians against rural Canadians to gain political favour among a small but powerful circle of special interest groups.

A 1998 Department of Justice consultation document acknowledged that well organized groups can and do initiate letter writing campaigns on this issue and that such campaigns can have an influence on government policy. For several years now organizations, such as the Animal Alliance of Canada and Zoocheck Canada, have been appealing to Canadians and to the government on an emotional rather than a rational level, using slogans such as “They're getting away with murder”.

During the past several years a great deal of misinformation has been circulated by animal rights groups, by the press and by individuals who believe that we need to pass the legislation in order to prevent horrific crimes against animals, such as those we have heard about over the past several months, including some of the ones referred to by the Liberal member who spoke previously, stories of cat skinnings and of dogs being starved, tortured or otherwise abused or neglected.

The extensive media coverage on this issue seems to indicate that many Canadians have been advised that somehow we do not already have laws to prosecute those who skin cats and drag dogs behind vehicles for pleasure. This erroneous idea, which has been perpetuated by animal rights groups in Canada, is completely false.

The animal cruelty laws on the books are good laws. They already criminalize intentional acts of cruelty against animals and there is no urgent need for that aspect of the law to be changed. The penalties for these offences are admittedly inadequate and I strongly support raising the penalties for these offences but the laws themselves must not be changed in the manner proposed by the legislation.

The issue is not whether or not we support legislation to deal with cruelty to animals. It is not about whether the majority of Canadians support this concept, because clearly they do. The issue is about the implications that this poorly drafted and poorly thought out legislation could have on potentially a very large number of Canadians.

To those who claim that something must be done about animal abuse, I agree. Those who intentionally abuse or neglect animals must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. No one wants to see animals abused. I own a dog and I do not use that term apologetically. I own a dog and I would be shocked and angry if he were harmed in any way.

My colleagues and I in the Canadian Alliance abhor animal cruelty and, as I have said, strongly support changes to the law that would strengthen the penalties for animal cruelty offences. However, we do not support the amendments to the criminal code found in Bill C-15B because they will significantly alter the ability of farmers, ranchers and medical researchers, among others, to engage in the legitimate and beneficial activities that they presently undertake.

One of the biggest problems in the legislation is the issue of animal cruelty offences being moved out of the property section of the criminal code. A few weeks ago in the London Free Press a journalist wrote that listing animal cruelty offences under the property section, as they currently are, is “a lot like saying hitting your horse with a 2x4 is akin to bashing your refrigerator”. The mistaken logic in this argument, apart from the unreasonable implication that a judge cannot tell the difference between a refrigerator and a horse, is at odds with the fact that people naturally have an interest in protecting their property, not harming it.

The overwhelming majority of animal owners, be they ranchers or dog lovers, have an overriding interest in ensuring the health and safety of an animal that they have purchased and cared for over time. In any case, the removal of the animal cruelty offences from the property section of the criminal code, as this legislation proposes to do, will have both a lasting symbolic effect as well as causing practical difficulties for many Canadians.

Moving animal cruelty offences out of the property section of the code is applauded by extreme animal rights movements because it will cause a fundamental change in the way that animals are perceived in our society and it will certainly change the way the courts view these offences. Judges will take into account these changes and attempt to interpret the reasoning and the intent behind it when applying the legislation to any future prosecutions laid under these provisions.

The prior justice minister and the justice department claim that moving the animal cruelty offences out of the property rights section has no legal significance. The member just stated that the minister has said that what was lawful before remains lawful now, so in essence there is no legal significance to this. If there is no legal significance to this, if what is lawful now remains lawful with this new legislation, it begs the question, why do it at all? If we are saying to judges that we are altering the legislation substantially but it is of no legal consequence, I can hardly believe that a judge would think that parliament would go through this exercise in order to do absolutely nothing.

Let us not mislead anyone. These provisions are making substantive changes. What is lawful now may well not be lawful tomorrow if the bill is passed. If that is not the case, why make these changes?

Although the former minister of justice who introduced Bill C-15B stated that it was not her intention to substantially change the law governing animal cruelty, in fact the proposals would remove the defences currently applicable to those who engage in activities ranging from traditional and legitimate farming practices to medical research that ultimately benefits the development of better health care for all of us.

Radical animal rights groups in Canada certainly will use this new legislation as the basis for legal harassment and unjust prosecutions, and in fact already have stated their intention to do so. The cost of defending an unjust prosecution, even if there eventually is a not guilty verdict, is a burden that ordinary Canadians cannot afford, nor should they be subjected to this burden. The animal rights lobby has argued consistently that legal rights for animals cannot be achieved until animals are no longer considered property under the law. I want to give the House just a few examples that illustrate the true intentions of these groups.

A lawyer for the World Society for the Protection of Animals, Lesli Bisgould, has been quoted as saying:

In fact, the legal status of animals today is analogous with that of oppressed groups in society over the past century, the right not to be seen as a means to an end, the right not to be property.

In a 1999 recommendation to the justice department, the Ontario SPCA said that pets should:

...become literally a part of the family and any abuse, wilful or otherwise, would be treated the same as abuse of a child.

Such groups who would chose to compare the life of an animal to the life of a human child should not be taken seriously, especially given the fact that they represent only a minute percentage of Canadian society, yet we have a Liberal government adopting that philosophy. They are the groups that are influencing government policy. They are the groups saying that animals are equivalent to children. It demeans children. It demeans human beings. This is the type of philosophy that the Liberal government is asking Canadians to accept.

Liz White, the director of the Animal Alliance of Canada, has stated in particular reference to this legislation:

I can't overstate the importance of this change. This elevation of animals in our moral and legal view is precedent setting and will have far, far reaching effects.

At least this individual is telling the people of Canada the truth. She is saying that what is lawful today will not be lawful tomorrow because these animal rights groups that have the inside track to the federal government, to the federal Department of Justice, will ensure that these prosecutions are undertaken.

She has also told her membership this:

My worry is that people think that this is the means to the end, but this is just the beginning. It doesn't matter what the legislation says if no one uses it, if no one takes it to court, if nobody tests it. The onus is on humane societies and other groups on the front lines to push this legislation to the limit, to test the parameters of this law and have the courage and conviction to lay charges. That's what this is all about. Make no mistake about it.

This is nothing about reforming the law. This is everything about adopting a radical animal rights agenda in order to prosecute farmers and others in the food production industry, as well as medical researchers.

A spokesman for the Voice for Animals Society in Edmonton made a statement in the Edmonton Sun on June 6, 2001, in reference to cattle branding, a practice which, I understand, has been going on for some time. It is lawful today to brand cattle. The spokesperson stated:

I sincerely hope the new law does lead to [court action]. We need to fundamentally reconsider some of these practices.

This is in reference to cattle branding. The spokesperson also stated:

I think that's what this law is for, to challenge the thinking. Cattlemen just want it to be business as usual.

That is what the minister has said, that it will be business as usual, that the law is not changing. That is what the member across the way has said, that the law today will be the law tomorrow. What is lawful today will be lawful tomorrow.

However, we know from these changes, and any reasonable lawyer, which is not an oxymoron as I am a lawyer myself, reading these provisions will understand, that something substantive has happened here in the House. If nothing substantive has happened, what are we doing here? Why make all these changes if there are no substantive changes?

I was a former prosecutor. I can just imagine appearing before the judge saying “Well, Your Honour, there have been substantial movements in these sections, substantial changes in the wording. We have taken these offences out of the property sections and moved them to a new part, but, Your Honour, I want you to think nothing of it. Nothing has really happened. There have been no substantive changes made”.

The defences that apply to the property sections, which now do not apply to these new sections, do not make any difference because apparently, from the reasoning across the way, those defences in the criminal code were mere window dressing. The member opposite said that in 40 years those defences have never been used. Does he not get the connection as to why those defences have never been used? Does anyone know why they have never been used? Because they would not allow an unjust prosecution to be commenced.

Those defences in the code stop the offence from being charged. A prosecutor looking at the property section would say there is a section he would like to use prosecute a person who commits an offence, but then he would say there seem to be these defences there, so he could not prosecute. The defences are there. These things never come to court, so of course they are never used in court.

The thinking across the way astounds me. The problem is, I do not think any of these people have ever been inside a court and have actually heard judges or lawyers make arguments. This seems to be an academic's dream and a cattleman's nightmare.

The intention of these groups is clear. As soon as the legislation is passed into law their members will commence private prosecution against farmers, ranchers, researchers and anyone else presently using animals for lawful and legitimate purposes. Most, if not all, of these charges may eventually be thrown out by the presiding judge, but the fact is that such prosecutions not only will tie up our courts and our justice system needlessly, they will cause great expense to the very people who cannot afford to be abused in this way.

I can just picture myself in front of one of my farmers who is charged under this private prosecution and saying that there is this great new thing that we do; we go up in front of a judge who is going to clear whether or not that charge can proceed. What we are doing is imposing a whole new system of preliminary hearings. On the one hand the former minister of justice has introduced legislation disposing of preliminary hearings. The defence lawyers were very angry about that because preliminary hearings are a good way to make money. Now what the government has done is institute preliminary hearings to see whether or not private prosecution should proceed.

The accused would go in front of a judge. Even if he is unjustly accused he has to hire a lawyer and argue against this. That is what a screening process is. It would be a legal hearing with all the attendant costs. What this does is fly in face of common law tradition, which states that the attorney general of the province can come into court and stay the charge if it is a frivolous prosecution. In respect of contentious charges, there are often sections in the criminal code that say that the prosecution shall not be commenced without the consent of the attorney general.

Rather than simply putting in that kind of provision, what has the government done? It has instituted a bureaucratic nightmare that will impact adversely on the pocketbook of somebody who has been unjustly prosecuted. That is what this is all about. This is the biggest piece of nonsense I have seen introduced in legislation in years. Believe me, I have seen a lot of nonsense and I have had to prosecute under it, but this is one of the biggest pieces of nonsense. Somehow the government is trying to tell the people of Canada that it is doing this for their own protection.

I could go on for hours outlining what appear to be the intentions of the animal rights lobby, but one of the most alarming aspects of this campaign is revealed in a fundraising letter from Liz White of the Animal Alliance. She stated:

Getting our politicians to pass good animal protection laws is about reward and punishment--rewarding them for doing a good job and punishing them for doing a poor one.

That is interesting. She continued, stating that:

The Liberals have done a good job on Bill C-15B--

She says it has done a good job on Bill C-15B and I say it has done a good job on the Canadian people. She continued, stating that:

--and our first chance to reward them will be in the upcoming byelection in Calgary Southwest.

She also referred to the last federal election in the former justice minister's riding. She stated:

Because of a commitment made by the Minister of Justice...in the House of Commons to pass C15B, Environment Voters campaigned for her re-election. Under attack by hunters and gun owners and a cabal of extremist right wing groups, [the minister] was in a losing campaign. Environment Voters stepped in and championed her election...Good to her word, [the minister] introduced the breakthrough animal protection legislation.

Talk about reward and punishment. According to the people who have supported and who have stood shoulder to shoulder with the former justice minister, the bill is the political payoff that that minister has to pay. Her own supporters are saying that and acknowledging it publicly. Is it not nice to know that these groups view Bill C-15B as a political payoff for the minister having introduced legislation in accordance with a radical agenda. Unfortunately the Liberals will not be running a campaign in Calgary Southwest.

The fact of the matter is that the goal of these groups is to fundamentally change the way in which animals are viewed in society. The Liberals continue to claim in committee hearings and in the media that frivolous, nuisance prosecutions will not be pursued and that they do not intend to prosecute farmers, hunters or medical researchers carrying out lawful activities. Yet their private statements to their own members is radically different from what they are telling the public, and I have quoted them extensively.

In a posting on an Internet chat site called Animal Rights News one subscriber wrote in reference to justice committee proceedings. It said:

The good news is that animal rights groups have researchers, hunters, fur people, farmers and other animal exploiters shaking in their boots and they feel that we are a real and genuine threat to their barbaric ways.

These are the groups who are supporting this legislation, who supported the former justice minister and who said publicly that the law as it is today will be the same tomorrow and we are going through this exercise of changing the law. We obviously are changing it for substantive reasons and those reasons are, simply put, a political payoff as these groups have acknowledged.

The extreme nature of their agenda is demonstrated by the fact that they claim that using animals for food, research, clothing or even as pets as people have done since the beginning of human civilizations, are “barbaric” practices and should be stopped.

I would now like to quote from a letter written by Pierre Berton, senior patron of Canadians for Medical Progress to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, that refutes the common claim by many of these radical groups and by government members themselves that private prosecutions will not be pursued using this new legislation. He stated:

One glaring example of a Canadian private prosecution undertaken by the Life-Force component of the animal-rights movement against Dr. William Rapley and Dr. Bernard Wolfe of the University of Western Ontario, ground through the courts in London, Ontario in 1985, and was finally thrown out of the courts because of its frivolous and malicious nature. The private prosecution was undertaken because the public prosecutor had refused to lay charges. There have also been many such cases in different U.S. jurisdictions over the year

He went on to say:

The decision to move animals from the Property section in Bill C15-B, will most surely open the door to an abundance of similar frivolous private prosecutions from the animal rights movement, against the research enterprise, in the future.

This is the eminent Pierre Berton telling us as we on this side of the House already know, that these animal rights activists will attempt to disrupt medical research that means a difference in our health care standards in this country.

This legislation would not only change fundamentally the way in which animals are viewed by the courts and by society, but moving animal cruelty offences out of the property section into a section or a part of its own removes the legal protections currently in place.

The phrase “legal justification or excuse and colour of right” in section 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any type of property offence and protects them from the charges being laid in the first place. Courts have held that these defences apply where the accused had the honest belief in a state of facts which, if true, would constitute a legal justification or excuse. For example, an honest but mistaken belief that it was necessary to kill an animal to put it out of its misery after a person had accidentally shot and wounded it while trying to frighten it off the land would be sufficient to provide a colour of right defence under these provisions.

This also applies to the performance of research on animals and a range of other legitimate activities. However, in the new bill, the fact that the animal cruelty provisions would be moved out of the general classification of property offences and into a section of their own would remove these provisions outside the scope of that protection and, therefore, charges could be laid, whereas previously the charges could not be laid.

The Canadian Alliance asked the government members to make the defences in section 429(2) explicit in the new legislation, but they refused. I believe it was my colleague from the Bloc who made that amendment.

In justice committee proceedings, the minister's parliamentary secretary attempted to assure the committee that it was the government's intention that the defences in section 429(2) of the code would continue to apply to cruelty to animals offences and that these defences were implicit in the new legislation. However, when the amendments were moved that would have made these defences explicit, the government members opposed them.

If these defences are already implicit, what possible objection could there be to make them explicit, other than to deny these protections to farmers and others who will be subjected to unfair prosecutions?

Instead of making these defences explicit in the legislation, the minister amended the bill to confirm that the common law defences available under section 8(3) of the criminal code would continue to apply to any cruelty to animal offences. This of course is meaningless. Section 8(3) already applies to the entire criminal code. Making that amendment does nothing. What the Liberals are trying to do is evade the direct, explicit protection that those defences in section 429(2) would have provided to these farmers.

Furthermore, as noted by the Canadian Council for Animal Care in committee testimony, these defences in section 8(3) do not necessarily encompass a recognition of the lawfulness of using animals for research and medical testing. Although common law defences could encompass activities authorized by statutes, such as the slaughter of animals for food, laws authorizing animal use in research only applies to six of the thirteen provinces and territories, and there is no federal legislation authorizing this kind of activity. Needless to say, many medical research groups and universities are very concerned with the implications this bill may bring if it is passed as currently written.

In answer to these concerns, and I need to reiterate this again, the former minister amended the bill to provide this screening mechanism which she claimed was a powerful tool to prevent frivolous private prosecutions.

What kind of a system is it? Well the mechanism would allow a provincial court judge to prescreen such prosecutions and decide whether they should proceed. The provincial judge does not get a file on his or her desk in his or her chambers and consider this. This is a prescreening that occurs in open court. This is a legal process and at a legal process I am sure the animal rights groups will have their lawyers there. Now we have the farmer or medical researcher being prosecuted.

My colleague across the way says that they do not need a lawyer. If the animal rights groups have all of the lawyers, we cannot have the farmer sitting there without a lawyer, and we know it will be an expensive process.

I want to reiterate what I said. What we are doing is creating a whole new class of preliminary hearings with day after day of evidence to see whether there is a reasonable basis for the charge to be laid. That is essentially what a preliminary hearing does. Now we are putting it in there instead of a simple provision that says that the consent of the attorney general in the province where the prosecution is taking place must be obtained before the prosecution proceedings.

Why do they not trust the public prosecutors? The Liberals do not trust them because the public prosecutes do not have a political agenda to go after farmers and medical researchers. They have not been bought off by the animal rights activists who are collecting on a debt their minister incurred during the last federal election, as the animal rights people have indicated.

Instead of alleviating the fears of farmers and other groups who rely on animals for their livelihood, this process being put into place by the government will only lengthen an already cumbersome and expensive legal process to which this farmer or medical researcher would be subjected.

It might be all right for Liberals with deep pockets to be prosecuted for this kind of an offence. They can hire all the lawyers, appear in front of the judge and argue with the animal rights activists. However there are a lot of people in my riding who earn a living the honest way, on the farm, producing food for the people of Canada. They will be taking the brunt of this radical animal rights agenda.

None of the concerns raised in committee hearings or in the House of Commons by those in favour of Bill C-15B would address the pressing need to ensure that cruelty to animals would be more effectively addressed by these amendments.

None of these examples demonstrated that. In fact even the provisions to increase the penalties are really a fiction because we know that those maximum penalties under the existing law are rarely, if ever, imposed. Therefore we can increase the penalties all we want. It will not make a difference if the judges do not impose or the prosecutors do not request those maximum penalties.

There are many other points that I would like to make in respect to this case but I think that the drift of the debate has gone far enough. I realize my time is drawing to a close, but the House and the committee needs to consider this further. Therefore I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefore:

“Bill C-15B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for the purpose of reconsidering clause 8, taking into consideration the importance of ensuring that the legitimate use of animals by farmers, sportsmen and medical researchers should be protected under this bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The amendment is in order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville, Gun Registry; the hon. member for Sherbrooke, Natural Resources.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present the position of the Bloc Quebecois and to share the views expressed by numerous stakeholders regarding this issue, which has been neglected for too long. My presentation will be divided into two parts. First, I will deal with the provisions on animal cruelty and, second, I will discuss the provisions concerning the Firearms Act.

It goes without saying that animal cruelty is a very important issue that must be closely examined by this House. Bill C-15B, which is the result of the splitting of Bill C-15, amends the criminal code by creating a new part exclusively dedicated to protecting animals and preventing animal cruelty. This is part V.1.

The criminal code is amended to increase penalties for offences related to cruelty to animals. I am referring to clause 8 of the bill, which amends the criminal code by adding clause 182.1 and the clauses that follow it.

This bill also amends the Firearms Act to modernize administrative procedures and to give more powers to the registrar of firearms, which results in decreased powers for the chief firearms officer, who currently falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. I will discuss this issue a little later on.

The federal government reacted favourably to a public campaign, to hundreds of letters and thousands of signatures from people who were asking for more effective animal protection legislation, and for harsher penalties for any act of cruelty involving animals.

Most of the of criminal code provisions dealing with cruelty to animals date back to the end of the 19th century. Modern associations and groups, whose numbers are growing and which are increasingly better organized, demanded that the scope, types and harshness of penalties be reviewed and increased. The idea was ultimately to have a more modern and broader notion of cruelty to animals. The federal government took advantage of this considerable support to introduce a bill reforming the part of the criminal code that deals with cruelty to animals.

Since its introduction, Bill C-15B has given rise to strong reactions and conflicting interests. Initially, the Bloc Quebecois supported several elements of the bill, including the creation of a new part in the criminal code, which would see the transfer of provisions related to animals from part XI of the code dealing with property crimes to this new part. However, the Bloc Quebecois can no longer support the bill, because it does not protect, among others, the legitimate activities of breeders, farmers, researchers, hunters and so on.

The purpose of this bill is to have more adequate means to deal with offenders who commit cruel and reprehensible acts against animals. The purpose of this reform is to protect animals, which we obviously support.

However, here is why we cannot support the bill as it stands. The then Minister of Justice as well as government officials claimed that the bill would not deprive the animal industry of its revenues,

We have to question the true intention of the federal government, since it has decided to reject the amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois asking that the means of defence in article 429 of the criminal code be added explicitly—I repeat, explicitly—to the bill so as to reassure the animal, farming, medical and sports industry regarding any risk of frivolous action. Because this has not been done, we cannot support this bill.

The Department of Justice simply preferred to amend the bill by adding the general defences in paragraph 8(3) of the criminal code. All that this amendment does is add to the bill a defence that is universally applicable. What we wanted was the specific addition of the means of defence in section 429.

What is the reason for not explicitly including these defences when a dummy amendment is being created to add clause 8(3)? The Bloc Quebecois proposed amendments specifically aimed at having the means of defence in section 429 of the criminal code added explicitly to new part V.1 of the criminal code.

The Minister of Justice and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights rejected the Bloc Quebecois' amendments, which would have explicitly added as a defence acting with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

The Bloc Quebecois would clearly have been in favour of the bill in principle if it could have been amended to reflect the means of defence currently allowed in part XI of the criminal code.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois recommended that the means of defence in section 429 of the criminal code be added explicitly to new part V.1 of the criminal code. All these amendments were turned down in committee.

What exactly is this bill? Bill C-15B contains the present provisions of the criminal code concerning cruelty to animals and adds a number of new provisions.

The problem at present as far as the section of the present code relating to animals is concerned is essentially with the concept of property. Animals being considered at present to be property rather than living things, the penalties and possible recourses are to all intents and purposes minimal.

Enforcement of the legislation as it now stands results only in damages for loss of goods. Another problem raised relates to the lenient sentences. Because sentences are lenient, they encourage repeat offences. Clearly, revision was necessary. This is why animal rights groups have repeatedly called for better protection with respect to cruelty to animals.

I must reiterate that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of increased protection for animals, but only provided there is protection for legitimate activities involving animals, animal husbandry, sport hunting and fishing, and research.

It is not the case with Bill C-15B, since the amendments tabled by the Bloc Quebecois have all been rejected. It is very important that we analyze the provisions of this bill to understand it fully. The logical place to start would therefore be with the definition. The bill contains a very broad definition of animal, which it describes as “a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain”.

This is what new section 182.1, in the new part V.1 of the criminal code, states. This is an example of a final change. Not only are animals moved from the property section, but this amendment also shows how animals will be viewed in the criminal from now on, that is as creatures that can experience pain.

I will come back later to the problem created by the introduction of the notion of pain in this part of the criminal code. The concerns of stakeholders in the animal industry are legitimate, very much so. Could a farmer who deliberately poisons a rat, which is a vertebrate, be convicted under section 182.1 of the criminal code or clause 8 of the bill? Would he be liable to the maximum sentence of five years imprisonment?

On the other hand, I want to make it clear that the bill does not define the notion of killing an animal without lawful excuse, in section 182.2(1)( c ). I wonder if a hunter who kills an animal without lawful excuse could receive a sentence of five years imprisonment.

Similarly, Bill C-15B could cause problems, particularly for breeders and the entire sport hunting industry in Quebec, as well as for medical and scientific researchers.

I believe that a better balance between these two opposing interests could have been struck. This did not happen, the amendments that the Bloc Quebecois proposed in an attempt to do so were all rejected in committee.

During the committee meetings, justice officials said that activities that were legitimately recognized would be recognized after the bill had been passed. We are skeptical. What is more, a number of witnesses appearing before the committee mentioned that there is an obvious lack of resources to enforce the criminal code effectively and appropriately when it comes to cruelty to animals.

Let me come back to the problems surrounding the notion of pain. This notion is not clearly defined, the Bloc Quebecois fears that the crown may not be able to prove which animals can feel pain other than by resorting to expert opinions. As well, once they have taken this first step, the crown may well have to meet twice the burden of proof because it will be required to prove, again by expert opinion, that not only is the animal in question able to feel pain, but that it did indeed feel pain.

The Bloc Quebecois also fears that there may be unjustified legal proceedings, which will create significant costs, not only for the Crown, but particularly for animal husbandry, sport hunting, research and other sectors, related to all of the expert opinions required to demonstrate the notion of pain, and pain that was in fact felt.

After this examination of the definition, I would now like to examine the clauses of the bill. Clause 182.2(1) lists the acts towards animals that would lead to criminal responsibility if committed by a person who does so wilfully or recklessly.

Paragraphs ( a ) through ( d ) do not provide for all means of defence as found in part XI of the criminal code. Paragraphs ( c ) and ( d ) do provide the protection of lawful excuse, but not the others.

As such, paragraph ( a ) of clause 182.2(1) refers to causing or, if you are the owner, permitting to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal. Paragraph ( b ) of the same clause refers to killing an animal brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately, or if you are the owner, permitting an animal to be killed in this way.

I bring to your attention clause 182.2(1)( c ), which provides a defence for someone who kills an animal without lawful excuse. Clause 182.2(10( d ) says that it is unlawful to poison ananimal, place poison in such a position thatit may easily be consumed by an animal,administer an injurious drug or substanceto an animal or, being the owner, permitanyone to do any of those things.

I emphasize that it would have been appropriate to amend the preamble of clause 182.2(1) to include the concept of lawful justification, excuse or colour of right for the first parts. With the amendments the Bloc Quebecois introduced, parts ( e ) and ( h ) would not be afforded the defences provided for under part XI of the criminal code.

It should be noted that we moved an amendment providing for an exception for hunting with hounds or for the roue du roi under clause 182.2( g ). This amendment was voted down in committee as well.

We agree with the intent of those clauses making illegal all activities concerning the fighting or baiting of animals, includingtraining an animal to fight another animal, under clause 182.2(1)( e ).

We also agree with the provisions in paragraph 182.2(1) ( f ) which would make it an offence to build or maintain a cockpit or any other arena for the fighting of animals on premises that a person owns or occupies, and those in paragraph 182.2(1)( g ) having to do with activities at which captive animals are liberated for the purpose of being shot at the moment they are liberated, with the exception of the exemption proposed with respect to hunting with hounds and the roue du roi.

We are also in agreement with paragraph 182.2(1)( h ) which has to do with the owner, occupier or person in charge of any premises permitting the premises or any part of the premises to be used in the course of an activity referred to in paragraph ( e ), fighting or baiting, or paragraph ( g ), captive animals being liberated for the purpose of being shot at, with the exception of the exemption proposed with respect to hunting with hounds and the roue du roi.

New paragraph 182.2(2) sets out the sentences for the above offences. These are hybrid offences liable on conviction by way of indictment to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months. The government added a fine to the sentence.

I wish to say at this point that we are in favour of increasing sentences. But the police must be able to make the charges stick. We think, therefore, that consideration must be given to the fact that the police do not necessarily have adequate resources to deal with complaints of cruelty to animals.

In addition, we think that it would be advisable to make the police and the courts more aware of this scourge. We realized this in committee, when police associations appeared before us to say that everything was fine. In fact, they were there solely to address the firearms provisions.

I must point out that representatives of animal defence groups have repeatedly told us that very few complaints lead to charges and that almost no charges result in a sentence. The Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that this aspect of the problem of cruelty to animals is vital to finding a solution. The necessary resources must be made available.

I will now look at the defences which should be part of the bill.

We believe that adding a new section to the criminal code will have the effect of moving animals to a section of their own, which in itself is desirable. However, we cannot support it because the defences available under section 429 of the criminal code, under part XI of the criminal code, dealing with property offenses, are not being transferred to the new part V.1.

The defences proposed in Bill C-15B are central to our concerns. The fact that the means of defence are not included in the new part V.1 will certainly result in those who legitimately and legally kill animals or cause them pain being deprived of the protection currently afforded them under subsection 429(2) of the criminal code.

Moving such provision would ensure lawful justification, excuse or colour of right. It is so at present. Why then not provide for it in Bill C-15B?

Subsection 429(2) of the criminal code reads as follows:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under sections 430 to 446 where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

While Bill C-15B includes the concept of lawful excuse for certain offences, as well as the common law defences in subsection 8(3) of the criminal code, it is still not enough because these provisions only apply to offences under paragraphs 182.1 ( c ) and ( d ) and are definitely not as general as the existing provisions.

However, the Minister of Justice, the Deputy Minister of Justice and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice saw fit to amend the bill stating that section 8(3) of the criminal code would apply and that the defences of legal justification or excuse or colour of right would be implicit. The Bloc Quebecois has grave reservations in this regard.

What is colour of right? In R. v. Ninos and Walker [1964] C.C.C. 326, the court stated that the accused must show that he had an honest belief in a state of facts which, if it existed, would constitute legal justification or excuse.

The colour of right defence is based on the honest and subjestive belief of the accused that at the time of the offence there was colour or right. It is based on a belief in a set of circumstances or a situation of civil law which, if it existed, would negate the wilful intent to commit the offence.

Even if the belief does not need to be reasonable, the fact is that it is a factor to be taken into consideration in determining whether such a belief. However, it is not enough for the accused to have an amoral belief in the colour of right.

The colour of right applies to errors of facts or errors in law and is not limited to areas of the law concerning proprietory interest or ownership right.

And what about legal justification or excuse? It is defined as a defence allowing someone accused of a criminal offence to be acquitted or get a reduced sentence because of circumstances surrounding the action in question.

I would stress that these defences are provided for under section 429 of the criminal code and allow legal activities that otherwise would be considered criminal.

Furthermore, section 8 of the criminal code states that common law defences render a circumstance a justification or excuse. According to the government, it would appear that the rules of common law are still in force, but this same government has chosen to reaffirm it in the new part of the criminal code, namely part V. 1.

The Bloc Quebecois has serious misgivings about this. On the one hand, legal experts tell us that defences provided for under section 8(3) of the criminal code apply all the time and, on the other hand, the government chose to include them explicitly in its bill. We question the appropriateness of this approach.

Let me explain. On the one hand, the department tells us that the defences now being used under section 429 of the criminal code, which apply only to that part of the code, will not be included in the new part of the legislation dealing exclusively with cruelty to animals. Representatives of the Department of Justice stated that these defences apply implicitly, so it is not necessary to spell them out.

On the other hand, the department has chosen to repeat the defences mentioned in section 8(3) of the criminal code, which apply to all of the code. Why do this if the defences automatically apply to the entire code?

I continue to wonder about this, because I want to know why the government has decided not to include some specific clauses that apply exclusively to one specific part of the code in another specific part of the legislation.

There is a principle in law whereby the legislator is not deemed to speak in vain. Therefore, if a general clause applies to the whole of a text, one has to conclude that a specific clause will only apply to a specific part of the text.

After all, if section 429 applies only to part XI of the criminal code, we would be mistaken in saying that it will also apply to another part of the code; that is why we must set out explicitly the defences mentioned in the new part V.1. That is what our amendments would have done.

A first common law defence provided under section 8(3) of the criminal code is that of necessity. The three evaluation elements for this defence are: first, the existence of an imminent danger or peril; second, the absence of reasonable legal alternative and, third, the proportionality between the harm caused and the harm avoided.

A second defence is the inducement to commit an offence, or police provocation. This defence may be used when, during the course of a criminal investigation, peace officers provide an opportunity to commit an offence, in the absence of a reasonable doubt that such an offence would be committed.

Intoxication is another defence. If the intoxication is induced by the accused himself, it is not a defence. However, it can be a defence for a crime of general intent, if the intoxication is such that it is not associated with a reasonable person. Finally, we all know the defence known as an alibi, where the accused endeavors to prove that he was in a different place when the offence was committed.

The Bloc Quebecois understands that the population as a whole is very attached to the moral principle of ensuring the wellbeing of animals. Many of us are concerned about this issue and feel that animals should be better protected from illegal and criminal behaviour affecting them.

A growing number of Quebecers and Canadians have been calling for tougher penalties against those who are cruel to animals.

As for us, we believe that it is just as important that judges, crown attorneys and special agents from the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals be empowered to impose penalties on those whom they find guilty of committing such offences. It is obvious that authorities lack the resources to examine complaints and deal with them in an appropriate fashion.

This is the substance of the evidence heard in committee. It was also reported that many studies confirm the existence of a close connection between cruelty to animals and aggressive criminal behaviour. Therefore, it appears that imposing harsher penalties on those who are cruel to animals could help prevent violent crimes against people.

Animal rights organizations are demanding increased protection against animal cruelty and more recourses. A majority of people agree and feel that it is essential to recognize animals as living beings.

It was also mentioned that the criminal code does not adequately cover cruelty to animals offences. Sections 444 to 447 of the criminal code were passed in 1892 and minor amendments made in 1954. The wording is obsolete and, in many cases, does not help in protecting animals forced to endure suffering and unnecessary wounds or wilfully deprived of essential care.

Again, a high proportion of serious criminal offences against animals do not result in sufficiently stiff sentences. This is what we should be focusing on.

I repeat, we must make the police, judges and crown attorneys more aware of this scourge so that it is no longer seen as an offence against property. We wish to emphasize that our reservations about this bill have to do with the potential threat to the conduct of legitimate activities.

The proposed amendments to Bill C-15B have to do with acts of cruelty committed wilfully. Department of Justice officials tell us that the bill will in no way change how the act is applied to existing legal activities involving animals and this is where we are not in agreement.

We think that the existing accepted practices of companies using animals must continue to be expressly protected by the fundamental criminal laws now in effect.

The Bloc Quebecois therefore believes that it is necessary to protect animals and not to consider them as property. Thus, part XI of the criminal code, which has to do with crimes against animals, was quite rightly included in Bill C-15B. Persons with animals in their care have an obligation to meet their basic needs and not to wilfully or recklessly cause them unnecessary pain, suffering or injury.

We believe that the shortcomings in the current legislation should have been corrected long ago. However, it appears obvious that the vital corrections to some of these shortcomings have still not been made.

We have heard from the witnesses and we can conclude that those who are directly or indirectly involved in the animal industry feel that this bill is unacceptable as now drafted. For the vast majority of them, the new provisions may well increase the possibility of legal action being taken against those who work in the industry or who engage in recreational activities such as hunting and fishing.

The demands by the chicken protection coalition clearly illustrate the concerns raised by Bill C-15B. This organization called upon the federal government to amend Bill C-15B so that livestock producers would retain the legal protection they enjoy at the present time and be able to continue to exercise their legitimate profession without any risk of complaints or charges. All of the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois relating to this were turned down by the committee.

There are two issues that provoked a reaction from chicken farmers, but that also reflect the concerns of livestock industry groups. According to these groups, there may well be serious consequences for the poultry industry and for all livestock industries.

I would now like to share with the House our concerns regarding this bill in terms of amendments to the Firearms Act.

We believe that the purpose of this bill is basically to take away a number of powers and responsibilities of the chief firearms officer, now under the jurisdiction of the government of Quebec.

Since the gun registration scheme was first introduced, the government of Quebec has set up agencies responsible for issuing permits, the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec.

Now Bill C-15B is creating a new position, the firearms commissioner. This will have the effect of diminishing the powers currently under the responsibility of the chief firearms officer who reports to the Government of Quebec.

We are justifiably concerned that, with these new provisions, all powers delegated to Quebec will end up back under federal government control, and the entire organization already set up by the Government of Quebec will be swallowed up.

At the present time, there are two entities involved in firearms control. The director is in charge of firearms registration, and reports to the federal government, while the chief firearms officer, who is responsible for issuing permits, reports to the Government of Quebec. This bill turns that arrangement topsy-turvy.

When the gun control legislation was being implemented, the Government of Quebec worked in close collaboration with the Canadian government, sharing its expertise on firearms and firearm control.

However, the new provisions limit the powers that had been delegated to Quebec and repatriate them to the control of the federal government. This is one more reason for our opposition to this bill. It is tantamount to a reversal of the partnership that was in place between the federal government and the Government of Quebec concerning the Firearms Act.

In our opinion, the ultimate goal of this bill is the creation of a federal gun control agency, one that would eventually be privatized, and thus to do away with everything coming under Quebec jurisdiction, either by cutting back the powers of the firearms commissioner, or by drastically cutting the funding to the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec.

The Bloc Quebecois also has some misgivings about the non-definition of the powers of the firearms commissioner. This is left to be defined as the Minister of Justice sees fit.

The proposed amendments make major changes to the administration of the Firearms Act, including the provisions on the financial participation of the federal government. Through this bill, the federal government is essentially seeking to reduce the costs associated with the administration of the act. To this end, this bill will give the government the power to centralize administrative activities and to close offices if it so desires.

There is also a problem with the proposed amendment dealing with air guns. As it is worded now, this provision is likely to create confusion because of the double negative in the French version.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois proposed that this provision be reworded to dispel any confusion by amending clause 2(2) of the bill to separate the elements listed. The amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois to eliminate the double negative in the French version was rejected in committee. The Bloc Quebecois wanted to clarify this provision in order to eliminate any risk of hardship for paintball game operators.

In conclusion, because the bill is poorly drafted and because the government rejected our amendments aimed at protecting the defences provided for the animal industry, the Bloc Quebecois has no choice but to oppose this bill. We proposed something that would have been acceptable for both parties, particularly for those who, like us, want to protect animals. The Bloc Quebecois also wants to protect defences provided for the animal industry, scientists and of those who engage in sports involving animals.

This bill does not explicitly protect the legitimate activities associated with the animal industry, with sport hunting and with research. Of course, we are against this bill because it takes away the powers of the Government of Quebec with regard to enforcement of the provisions of the Firearms Act.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the members who spoke before me. It seems to me that the heart of the matter is the way people regard the change in the status of animals as a result of Bill C-15B. For the first time the treatment of animals and the whole question of cruelty to animals is being taken out of the property section of the criminal code and put into an entirely new section of the criminal code. This is the source of concern on the part of at least three of the opposition parties.

The New Democratic Party sees this change in the status of animals as one of the things that is good about the bill. Getting beyond regarding animals as simply property is a conceptual and philosophical advance. We are not opposed to that. In fact that is one of the things we celebrated about Bill C-15B along with a lot of other people.

We join with those who feel that amendments to the criminal code with respect to increasing penalties for cruelty animals is long overdue. I hope the Bloc would share our view on that even though it appears it has decided to oppose the bill.

I listened with care to the critic from the Alliance. He expressed a lot of concerns that I know are out there in the community of fishermen, farmers, hunters, trappers, people who use animals for medical research purposes, people who grow animals for food, et cetera. They all have a concern that the legislation would somehow be used to harass them and to make their life miserable.

People who have what one might arguably call a radical animal rights agenda could use the legislation in ways that it was not intended, not intended by the government, and not intended by the NDP in supporting the legislation. If the legislation were to become a tool by which people engaged in those kind of activities were harassed then I for one would be quick to come back to the government and say that we were wrong on this. I would argue that the protections built into Bill C-15B to prevent that kind of harassment were not working and that we must do something to protect the legitimate interests and activities of people who grow animals for food or people who were engaged in fishing, hunting, research, et cetera. I would certainly share those concerns.

I must say I do not know why the government was not more open in the drafting of the legislation to giving the kind of discretion to the provincial attorneys general that some people argue should be in there.

On the other hand the Alliance critic, the member for Provencher, seems to think that there would never be any political agenda if only it were left in the hands of the attorney general. I would regard this argument as somewhat suspect. I can imagine the member for Provencher in other contexts accusing a particular provincial attorney general of having a political agenda with respect to enforcement of certain laws having to do with social policy or whatever.

It would not be a guarantee to me, if the power that is sometimes vested in attorneys general was left with attorneys general with respect to the enforcement of these new offences, that somehow farmers and fishermen and others would be protected. It is conceivable that we could have an attorney general with a radical animal rights agenda in which case there would be no protection. In fact, there might even be less protection. There might even be instructions to crown prosecutors or others to go after everybody they possibly could. The argument from the Alliance critic is somewhat one-sided in that respect.

In some ways the response of the Alliance to Bill C-15B and the radical animal rights activists are sort of mere images of each other. They both attribute extremist motivations and intentions to each other. We saw that clearly this afternoon and that is unfortunate. I do not think that has contributed to the kind of debate that we could have had about Bill C-15B.

I regret that the hoist motion has been moved by the Alliance critic because that means that this debate will drag on further than it ought to. The time has come for this legislation to be passed, tested and practised, and if found wanting, if found to be a source of illegitimate harassment of people who are involved in various legitimate activities then let us have the legislation back.

Bill C-15B does not have to be the last word on it. I have seen other legislation passed through the House and come back in a few years time to be corrected. I have also seen legislation that does not come back. We all have a political responsibility to ensure that if in some way or another the bill does not live up to expectations, or for that matter if it does live up to the negative expectations of certain people, we will need to come back and correct it.

We feel that the bill is worthy of passage as it stands now. We would like to see the bill passed as soon as possible; we see this as progress. We are willing in future to review whether or not some of the fears that have been expressed about the bill have come to pass and if they have we would be willing to review it.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague for whom I have immense respect. He has been here a long time and has seen a lot of legislation come and go.

I was somewhat taken aback at his suggestion that if in fact the bill was found wanting and it came to pass that the legislation was used for extreme purposes to harass legitimate activities involving animals, whether it be farmers or furriers, those involved in animal husbandry of any sort, that we could bring it back.

Yes, he is correct in suggesting that things can move very quickly through the House if that is the government's intention yet he would know that this particular issue has not been before us for many years. In fact this is one element of the criminal code that has not been touched for decades.

My great concern and the concern that I have had expressed to me numerous times is that if those individuals who fall under the prosecution sections for legitimate activities are told to wait for the bill to come back again, that simply will not cut it. They will be out of business; they will be bankrupt. They will lose their farms or their businesses. I am sure my friend would agree that is cold comfort.

To that end it seems to me that as parliamentarians we have a far greater responsibility to get it right this time. All of the intent of the bill could be achieved by leaving the sections involving the designation of animals as property as they are and upping the ante with respect to the punishment sections and the reach that investigators have. Would my friend not agree that would be a far more practical approach now in the first instance?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

No, Mr. Speaker, because I was convinced, as were others, that doing what the hon. member suggests would simply perpetuate a problem that people have experienced with this legislation in the past. That is it would continue to be difficult to get convictions with respect to cruelty to cats, dogs and other animals which in the past it has been difficult to get convictions on, not on the animals but on those who are being cruel to them. I was persuaded, as were my colleagues, that there was a need to make those kinds of changes.

The member said that this is new and we have not spent much time on it. However we have spent a lot of time on it, I think over 100 years, so that argument can be turned around. It is not as if there has not been lots of time to argue for, to expect or to consider what changes should be made to the criminal code with respect to cruelty to animals.

We have come this far. I think it is incumbent upon on us to show some leadership on this issue. It is time to give this new status to animals, but not in a way that would serve the radical agenda of people who want to eliminate the use of animals for food, clothing or research. That is certainly not my position. I believe that these are legitimate activities.

As I said before, we ought to be open to the prospect that sometimes legislation can be used in ways that were not intended. If that turns out to be the case, as I said before, we would want to have this legislation reviewed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona will have six minutes left for questions and comments when debate resumes on the bill.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on todays' order paper.

Criminal Code

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

moved that Bill C-208, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual offences), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I rise today to debate Bill C-208, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to sexual offences. For over four years now, I have been single-handedly promoting the idea of amending the criminal code to provide for stricter prison sentences for pedophiles .

A petition signed by over 40,000 people was tabled in the House by myself and the member for Laval Centre on behalf of the former member for Jonquière, André Caron, who initially proposed this idea.

During the last election campaign, I made two promises with respect to legislation. I promised to put forward a bill that would provide tax deductions for those who use public transit in Canada. This bill received second reading last fall, and consideration in committee should begin in a few weeks.

I also promised to put forward a bill that would cover all the points listed in the petition on pedophilia. However, I was extremely unhappy to hear that some members of the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business did not see fit to make Bill C-208, before us today, a votable item. And this in spite of the fact that over 40,000 people officially support this extremely important bill, since it is aimed at providing greater security for our children who are the victims of acts of pedophilia.

Bill C-208 is designed to correct a number of flaws in the criminal code. If I may, I will describe them.

First, my bill provides for a minimum two year prison sentence for any individual convicted of sexual assault on young people under the age of 14, and a five year minimum sentence for repeat offenders.

Second, under the bill, any person who is convicted of such an offence would have to undergo treatment as the court directs. The governor in council may make regulationssetting out the situations in which the convictedperson should undergo treatment. It is important to note that this type of treatment should in no case interfere with thebodily integrity of the convicted person. It should be a psychological treatment only, because physicians agree that the predisposition to pedophilia, which is a sexual attraction to children under 10, is first and foremost a psychiatric problem.

In my bill, I do not in any way advocate chemical castration of pedophiles, because that would go against their rights and freedoms, and it would not solve the problem, which is psychological in nature.

After child molestation has occurred, there is no assistance for children or their parents. This is a serious problem, because the victims and their families do not get any help, and they are left with feelings of guilt and shame, and they turn in on themselves. That is why Bill C-208 provides for a psychological follow-up for the victims.

Imagine one of your children has been molested. How could you help him or her? This is a very serious situation, and the child should get some help. This is our moral obligation. Unfortunately, some members of the subcommittee on private members' business have prevented us from helping these children and their parents.

The inner pain of a mother in such a situation is beyond words. The public wants meaningful action. Today, we are discussing a bill, but, at the end of the day, it will not be voted on. We will be prevented from making a decision that could better protect the basic rights of our children, the adults of tomorrow.

I wonder why we have to amend the criminal code today through Bill C-208. At present, sexual offences are considered as hybrid offences by the courts. This means that the crown has the discretion to proceed by summary conviction, which allows the court to sentence an accused to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to a maximum of six months imprisonment.

The subject-matter here is rape of minors. Who could possibly think that a $2,000 fine is a fair penalty? People who commit such offences against minors deprive their victims of their childhood, their sense of dignity and their freedom, and scar them for life.

How can such an action be erased by a $2,000 fine? The young person will bear a deep scar for the rest of his life and will remain forever affected in the deepest intimate sense. I would like to quote what a young girl who was victim of sexual abuse said in issue 272, May-June 1998, of the magazine Recto Verso . The words she used are very much to the point:

I never enjoyed that. It was the worst thing that happened to me in my whole life, and I do not wish to go through it again. I feel very sad; I have had nightmares and I cannot even take a bath alone. I am no longer able to play with boys. I cannot even stay close to my father or play with him as I used to.

An adult court survey showed that 25% to 30% of sexual offenders are sentenced on summary conviction, which means a $2,000 fine and/or a six month imprisonment sentence. According to a study, 90% of imprisonment sentences for sexual assault were less than two years. It is therefore easy to understand why the public no longer believes in the criminal justice system; it is therefore our duty, as parliamentarians, to change this system in order to restore public confidence.

The 40,000 petitioners, a majority of which are from the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, convey this message, as do 84% of Canadians and 91% of Quebecers, who believe that the judicial system does not punish severely enough those who commit rape and other sexual offences. Moreover, 83% of Canadians and 90% of Quebecers believe that the criminal justice system does not come down hard enough on convicted pedophiles.

Allow me to give the example of a man found guilty of acts of pedophilia, to demonstrate how absurd the current situation is.

Twice convicted for such acts in the mid 1990s, Raymond Boulianne served a sentence of 12 days for sexual assault before being set free in 1995. As soon as he was out of prison, he reoffended with girls aged nine and ten years. Found guilty again in 1996, he was sentenced to nine months in jail and was required to undergo therapy for 25 weeks. However, he never demonstrated any willingness to follow the treatment, and he was freed a few weeks later.

In a letter about this problem to the then Minister of Justice, who is now the Minister of Health, she responded, and I quote:

—in the case of most other serious offences or violent offences, our system of justice has always advocated for a case by case approach when it comes to sentencing, based on the maximum sentences contained in the law.

This is the logic used by the court in the case of Raymond Boulianne. Based on his individual case, this repeat offender only deserved 12 days in prison.

As for treatment to be undergone by criminals, the Minister of Justice at the time said, and I quote:

—in some cases, they may be required to meet certain conditions which may include the requirement to undergo treatment for sexual disorders—

The court had stipulated that Mr. Boulianne must undergo therapy. He managed to get around doing so, and the court took no action. This is serious.

These two points: the personalized approach and the supposed obligation to undergo treatment are not working and seriously undermine the credibility of our criminal law system. In the case of Raymond Boulianne, clearly the system did not work.

The purpose of my bill, then, is to change this state of affairs and to ensure that our children are better protected. The provision relating to mandatory treatment for all convicted pedophiles would represent an investment which could result in a considerable reduction in human and social costs in future.

According to André McKibben, a criminologist and therapist at Montreal's Pinel institute, a criminal who has been cured of sexual deviancy will not reoffend, which represents an average saving—and we must talk in numbers as this is the approach that has to be taken with this government—of $125,000 per individual. The results obtained at Pinel seem conclusive on this point: tests have been able to make a 50% reduction in repeat offences by repeat offenders. All that would be required for general application of these good results would be an organized and concerted approach.

Unfortunately as I said earlier on, I am speaking today with mixed feelings. This bill not having been selected as votable, we will be debating it for one hour. I imagine the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice will also speak for 10 minutes objecting to my bill, and the four other opposition parties will then set out their positions on it. What, however, will this change in the long run? Will the victims of sexual offences be better served by the criminal court system? Will convicted sex offenders be given heavier sentences? WIll they receive psychological treatment? Will our children who have been the victims of pedophiles have a better future? To all these questions, my answer is no.

I find it unfortunate that we must put so much effort to no avail. This bill deserves at the very least particular attention in a parliamentary committee. Victims have a right to be heard, and to defend their point of view. For this reason, and for the protection of our children, I am seeking the unanimous consent of this House to have Bill C-208 declared votable.