Madam Speaker, I rise today to provide the Bloc Quebecois' position as regards the amendment to the amendment.
We believe that it is high time to take action on the matter of cruelty to animals, but this does not mean that we should act in haste.
It is true that cruelty to animals is a serious problem that deserves our attention. We are on the record as saying that these are horrible acts of violence committed wilfully, while animals cannot defend themselves, nor assert their rights.
The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-15B for two main reasons: because of the lack of protection for legitimate activities with animals, and also because it takes important powers away from the chief firearms officer.
That being said, we do support the amendment to the amendment to establish a deadline for an indepth study into the provisions of Bill C-15B regarding means of defence. While we support the notion of a new section that would introduce an innovative concept by changing the notion of animals as property, we are opposed to the significant and negative impact this could have for all those who work legitimately as breeders, hunters and researchers.
The amendment is an important one, but it should not be made to the detriment of others. It is true that we no longer view animals in the same way that we used to. However, I would not want this innovation to change the lives of those who have worked for years in the livestock, scientific research or sport sectors.
So the amendment to the amendment sets a deadline by which the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights must report to the House further to its detailed consideration of clause 8 of Bill C-15B.
The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the amendment to the amendment because it means that there is a reasonable possibility that clause 8 of Bill C-15B will be reviewed in a careful and detailed manner. This clause defines the benchmarks for the protection of legitimate activities in the animal industry.
Bill C-15B raises strong controversy. One of the areas of controversy is the flagrant lack of protection for these legitimate activities in the animal industry. As we have already said, we cannot support Bill C-15B as now worded.
The specific defences provided for in section 429 of the criminal code, which now explicitly protect those who raise livestock, hunters, the animal industry and researchers, are not included in new part V.1 of the criminal code.
The primary purpose of this bill should have been to increase penalties for any reprehensible and violent activity. Furthermore, the term “cruelty” is clear to this effect. The penalty for a cruel offence should be serious enough to deter anyone contemplating it. But this is not the case with Bill C-15B, because it lumps all violent actions together, whether or not cruelty is involved. This is unacceptable.
In committee, we were told that it was not the government's intention to deny the legitimate activities of livestock raising, hunting and research the protection to which they are entitled. But protection is expressly provided for in section 429 of the criminal code, whereas it is not in clause 8 of the bill.
I therefore wonder why these protections in section 429 of the criminal code are not included in new part V.1 of the criminal code. It is simply not logical.
On numerous occasions in committee, we put forward many amendments to this effect. They were all rejected. It is therefore time to go back and take a specific look at the defences provided for, which should be provided for in clause 8.
We could ask ourselves what is really motivating the government right now. Why not include provisions which have been around for a long time?
The Bloc Quebecois has introduced amendments to that effect, but they have all been rejected, as I have said. In our opinion, it is essential to protect animals, and this is a matter of some urgency. It is, however, important to take steps that are both appropriate and prudent if all stakeholders are to be satisfied. This is both possible and attainable.
As I have said, we favour the creation of a new part in the criminal code, to address the protection of animals. It would give them a new definition and a new legal value. We cannot, however, accept this being done without respecting the currently applicable mechanisms of protection, the means of defence listed in section 429.
To do so is tantamount to disrespecting the men and women who have been working in this field for many years. Not including a defence that is currently available is cause for concern.
Does this mean we can no longer count on our legislation? Does this mean that normal activities will soon become illegal? From what we can see, this will indeed be the case.
I wonder about the vision the government has chosen. If this means that our legitimate activities are going to be in a precarious position in future, I am concerned. I am both concerned and disappointed. It seems to me that today we possess all the tools necessary to create an approach that would punish true offenders while protecting farmers, hunters and researchers. From what I see, this approach is far from being as complete and all-encompassing as it could be.
I have already said, and I repeat, the fact that the defences found in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code are not included in the new part V.1 will have the effect of depriving those who legally kill or cause pain to animals of the protection they are currently afforded.
Section 429 of the criminal code sets out that legal justification or excuse and colour of right constitute specific protection to whomever takes part in a legitimate and legal activity. I believe that it is important to include these specific safeguards in part V.1 of the criminal code.
According to the former Minister of Justice, subsection 8(3) of the criminal code will be applied. This type of statement demonstrates incomplete and clearly inadequate intentions. According to officials from the Department of Justice, defences of legal justification or excuse are implied in section 8. This defies logic. It is impossible to shift from specific and explicit provisions to an implicit application without any problems.
For this reason, the Bloc Quebecois insists that these specific defences, currently set out in the criminal code, absolutely must be repeated in the new part V.1 of the criminal code. Furthermore, we believe that sending this aspect of the bill back for study in committee is a good sign.
This review is long overdue. So why rush ahead without thinking now. All the ins and outs of the new provisions must be examined in order to ensure that the scope of Bill C-15B is logical. Care must also be taken to ensure that Bill C-15B really meets the needs of all parties.
We are therefore in favour of increased protection for animals, as well as the explicit inclusion of protection for legitimate animal industry, sport and research activities.
It is obvious to us that Bill C-15B, as now worded, will cause serious difficulties for hunters, medical and scientific researchers, and the entire animal industry. There must therefore be a completely democratic approach in committee, so that all aspects of cruelty to animals can be taken into consideration.
The facts associated with this phenomenon of intolerable violence should be re-evaluated. We must ensure that there can be no possible conflicting interpretations of the new provisions.
This is what is required of us in our role as parliamentarians. Asking the committee to report before the summer shows that we are being diligent as parliamentarians, because we feel that this scourge requires our serious and urgent attention.
I call on the government, on the Minister of Justice, and on his parliamentary secretary, to have a look at this motion and approve it so that we give serious consideration to the defences which I feel should be explicitly included, which take nothing away from the bill and which will protect all stakeholders in the animal industry.