Debates of May 10th, 2002

The House resumed from April 30 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; and of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

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

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15B, an act to amend the criminal code and the Firearms Act. The stated purpose of the bill is to amend the criminal code by consolidating animal cruelty offences and increasing the maximum penalties. The bill would also add administrative provisions that are intended to simplify applications of the Firearms Act.

Bill C-15B re-introduces the proposed amendments to the cruelty to animals provisions of the criminal code that were introduced in Bill C-17 during the last parliament with certain changes. However, despite the minor improvements to the legislation, many people who are dependent on the harvesting and husbandry of animals for their livelihoods still have a number of concerns with the bill.

One concern is that the definition of animal is too broad. The proposed definition of an animal in Bill C-15B includes non-human vertebrates and all animals having the capacity to feel pain. The new definition would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never before been provided that kind of protection.

Another key concern is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection afforded at present to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices.

The phrase legal justification, excuse or colour of right in subsection 429(2) of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who commit any kind of property offence. 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 of the scope of that protection.

Moving the animal cruelty section out of the range of property offences to a new section in its own right would emphasize animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. This is a significant alteration in the underlying principles of the legislation and could elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts. The legislation could open up the possibility that farmers, sporting groups and scientific researchers would be unjustly prosecuted.

Animal rights groups in Canada will certainly use the new legislation as the basis for such prosecution and have already stated their intentions to do so. Liz White, the director of legislative revision from the Animal Alliance of Canada has stated:

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 the conviction to lay charges. That's what this is all about. Make no mistake about it.

The former federal justice minister assured us that what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent. However, the problem is that these new provisions would arguably narrow the scope of what constitutes legitimate activities.

The changes to the Firearms Act are administrative by nature. The provisions of the bill are intended to simplify the registration process and to incorporate information technology to reduce costs. Regarding the Firearms Act, I refer to section 31 of the Canadian Alliance declaration of policy where it states:

We believe there should be severe mandatory penalties for the criminal use of any weapon. We are committed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals as a necessary part of making our communities safer. We will replace the current firearms law with a practical firearms control system that is cost effective and respects the rights of Canadians to own and use firearms responsibly.

We support increasing penalties for cruelty to animals offences but we do not support widening the scope of what currently constitutes a criminal offence. New animal cruelty legislation may cause the courts to interpret such offences in a different light. This could have significant and detrimental implications for farmers, hunters, and other agricultural producers who are dependent on animals for their livelihoods.

We do not support the amendments to the Firearms Act as we have a long held feeling that the act should be repealed entirely and replaced with a practical, cost-effective firearms control system.

To reiterate, the Canadian Alliance in no way condones intentional acts of cruelty to animals and supports increasing the penalties for offences relating to such acts. Moving animal cruelty provisions out of property offences to a new and separate section of the criminal code could elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts. The defences currently available would no longer apply in the new section. The new definition of animal would include an extremely broad definition that includes a vertebrate other than a human being and any other animal that has a capacity to feel pain. This new definition would extend legal protection to a number of living organisms which have never been provided that kind of protection before.

The former justice minister stated that what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent. If it was not the former justice minister's intention to change what is lawful today why did she not simply raise the penalties for existing animal cruelty offences?

Without substantial amendments to address the concerns I have I must join with my colleagues of the official opposition party and oppose the bill.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part today, at third reading stage, in the debate on Bill C-15B, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

This bill was the government's response to hundreds of letters and thousands of signatures from people asking for a more effective act regarding treatment, protection and penalties relating to animal cruelty.

The current legislation dates back to the 19th century and needs to be modernized. However, after scrutinizing this bill, we realized that the government has not been able to strike a proper balance so that breeders, farmers, hunters and researchers who carry out legitimate activities do not have to face unacceptable legal action.

The purpose of this bill is not, of course, to protect people, from all walks of life, who commit cruel and reprehensible acts against animals.

Everyone agrees on the need to make changes in order to find the proper balance.

However, while the Minister of Justice claims that the bill does not deprive the animal industry from its revenues, it would be important to specify this in the legislation, so as to reassure the animal, farming, medical and sports industry regarding any risk of frivolous lawsuits.

This was not done, and it is why the Bloc Quebecois is against the bill. The minister simply amended the bill by adding the defences in paragraph 8(3) of the criminal code. The minister and the Standing Committee on Justice 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 legislation would no longer provide any balance on the issue of cruelty to animals. We are shifting from an outdated legislation that did not properly protect animals from cruelty to a legislation that would put people carrying out legal and reasonable activities in an unfair and unacceptable situation.

As a member representing a rural riding, my duty is to protect not only farmers, but also the tourism industry which includes hunters, ranchers and researchers.

In my riding, for example, studies are conducted on a regular basis to see if the snow goose population is maintained at an adequate level. There are contentious issues involved here. The legislation, in its present form, could result in prosecution that would prove frivolous and that would hinder the very scientific and relevant process undertaken to ensure adequate management of the snow goose population.

This is also true for farmers. We have seen all over the planet animal rights advocates, whose point of view is defendable. However, we must avoid going too far and finding ourselves in a situation where it would be impossible to get into various types of operations that are currently accepted, that are normal in our society but that could result in vexatious prosecution.

The Bloc Quebecois was in favour of the bill in principle, if it could have been amended to reflect the means of defence already allowed in part XI of the criminal code. This is why the Bloc Quebecois asked that the means of defence in article 429 of the criminal code be added explicitly to new part V.1 of the criminal code. These amendments were rejected in committee.

This bill also deals with firearms. In that part of the bill, powers are taken away from the Government of Quebec, which created bodies responsible for issuing licences, namely the Bureau de traitement and the Centre d'appel du Québec. These responsibilities will be taken away from Quebec under this bill, which we also find totally unacceptable.

In short, the Bloc Quebecois opposes the bill because it does not explicitly protect the legitimate activities of the animal industry, hunting and research, and because it strips the Government of Quebec of the power to enforce the provisions of the Firearms Act.

I will give a good example of what goes on in my riding. The Cégep de La Pocatière offers a popular course on animal health, which trains people to become technicians working with veterinarians. Obviously, in this line of work, one must operate on animals. The people who take such a course become animal health technicians. They learn to work with veterinarians and animals.

The bill, as it stands, could lead to lawsuits against this practice, with the major legal consequences that entails. Such proceedings would not, in my opinion, jeopardize the program as such, but they would give rise to costs that, in my opinion, are inappropriate. Consequently, we believe that the bill should be re-examined more thoroughly before being passed.

The same goes for farmers and ranchers. Our ranchers have to assume their responsibilities properly. I believe that the vast majority do just that. If there are exceptions, let us use the provisions currently in the act or amend the bill to focus on those cases. However, we should not make a blanket statement. Many ranchers behave quite appropriately and they should not be the object of frivolous lawsuits. I believe the bill should be reviewed and reworked to be made more palatable.

The purpose of this bill is to have more adequate means to deal with offenders who commit cruel and reprehensible acts against animals. It meets the intent of the reform, which is to protect animals, but it does not define precisely and properly enough what an offender would be. Consequently, the bill will be challenged in court time and time again. I do not believe making this kind of laws is what legislators intend. Their goal is to have laws that will be easily enforceable and that will help deal with problems. It is important to do this properly.

As I was saying before, the current legislation dates back to the 19th century. It is being updated. Let us hope we will not have to do it again within the next five or ten years. We should have legislation that is consistent with today's reality and that will enable us to deal with problems in the years to come.

We do not have that with this bill. Therefore, it should be sent back to the drawing board. I believe it is not a matter of such urgency that we need to do it for tomorrow morning, but it is important to have proper legislation we all agree upon, which is not the case at present.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill unless it is amended in a novel fashion.

Since we are at third reading, unless the government decides to change the content of the bill to better take into account criticism from those who raise animals, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against the bill. As a member from a rural area, I can only applaud this position.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

When we talk about cruelty to animals it raises compassion in people. It brings out what is best in human beings. It brings out their concern about cruelty to animals. I, representing the urban riding of Calgary East, have a lot of constituents who have written to me about this. When they hear the title of the bill, they automatically have compassion. I have been subject to numerous representations from them. They feel that we should pass the bill because, from their point of view, the bill is needed to stop cruelty to animals and we have all seen many examples of cruelty to animals.

The title of the bill automatically makes it an emotional issue for people who live in urban areas and cities in Canada. Nobody would say they oppose protecting animals. Everybody would agree with the bill. As a matter of fact, I have a dog, and I can tell members that my own children would get upset if I were to tell them that technically I am opposing the bill. They would feel that I am agreeing with cruelty to animals.

However, that is not the issue here. The issue is not cruelty to animals. As I stated yesterday during debate on the private member's bill dealing with the killing of wildlife, which was presented by my colleague, the approach the government takes in addressing an issue is that it will try to address an issue but at the same time it will try not to address an issue. The government plays a role which at the end of the day turns out to be of no help to anyone. This is the typical kind of bill that comes from the--

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Nonsense. Are you for it or are you against it?

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

There they go, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what I am stating. What does he mean, am I for it or against it? The bill has flaws. The bill was not thought out. The member on the other side wants to go ahead with it and that is exactly what I am talking about. That is why today we want to highlight what is wrong with the bill.

Bill C-15B would penalize those who deal with animals as part of their life.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

That is not true.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague who is screaming from the other side will have an opportunity to counteract when he gets up and debates this issue in a reasonable manner instead of screaming from the other side.

Some animal rights groups have stated that they will not target individuals. We seem to have a problem. Let me give the House an example. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has launched an anti-dairy campaign targeting school children. This group goes around to schools in Canada and tells children that the consumption of milk will make them fat, gassy and pimply. This group wants the bill to pass so it can propose its own agenda. We should think about this group and what it is telling children. This is not funny. This is real. This group is saying that the consumption of milk will make children fat, gassy and pimply.

Let us talk about our dairy industry. Our dairy industry is a success story. Canada has thousands of dairy farmers. They are concerned about this bill and legitimately so. It is stated here quite clearly, and I am telling members exactly what it says. When did that become fearmongering.

The problem is the bill does not address many issues that are of concern to people such as dairy farmers. As a matter of fact, they wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada highlighting their concerns about the bill.

What has the government done? It has done nothing. It is ramming the bill through, saying that it wants the bill passed.

I will state in short what my colleague has already stated are the concerns of the Canadian Alliance. My other colleagues will rise today to speak on this and we will again talk about this issue. In essence, we must be very clear, aside from what members on the other side might scream, that the Canadian Alliance will not support the bill, and not because of the issue of cruelty to animals. We all agree that cruelty to animals must be stopped. We want a bill that addresses this issue and other issues as well but in a balanced manner.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk to this bill today. I am also pleased to see that the Liberal member from Edmonton is with us today because he certainly will understand what I am about to say. I hope he can relate it to some of his colleagues in his caucus.

I also hope the heckler will stick around and listen to a specific story which is true and based on facts. It happened in my riding to a close friend of mine, a rancher who lives right outside the town I live in. I have an account of the events that took place in the life of this rancher, well written by an eyewitness to it. The fellow's name is Mr. Dave Morgan and he has given me permission to illustrate why this bill needs to be repaired and fixed properly.

Mr. Morgan is likewise a person who has lived in the area for many years. His family homesteaded the property on which he now lives over 100 years ago. They have dealt with animals all their lives and are truly respectful of animals. They like the idea of making certain that we have laws in place which prevent the absolutely unnecessary cruelty to animals that we know happens so often, something with which this party agrees.

I will just read the account of this story and hope that people on that side of the House can understand what we are saying because this is only one sample of hundreds across the board.

A well known rancher...75 years old...raising cattle all his life...ranching and farming on the land his father settled over 100 years ago... was charged by the SPCA with keeping a cow in distress. I know this rancher, I know his set-up as do many cattlemen and businessmen from far and wide not to mention his immediate neighbours. I saw the cow in question on the day she left the ranch, on October 25, 1999. She was a nice looking older cow with a slightly swollen eye, with calf by her side of approximately 550 lbs.This cow was culled from the herd and was not in any sort of distress at the time she left the ranch. She was taken, with three other cows, to auction and sold the next day weighing 1135 lbs. after a 24-hour stand to one of two buyers bidding on her...

In December 1999, two SPCA officers phoned to ask if they could pay a visit to the rancher. Which they did and impressed by the fine operation and cow herd. Shortly thereafter, even after seeing the Rancher's successful cattle ranch, a subpoena was presented. The Canadian justice system then became engaged!!!

And away went the system doing what it does best--wasting thousands of tax-payers dollars, and at the same time making ridicule of a prominent Alberta rancher through unsubstantiated allegations. This procedure took from December 14, 1999 when the SPCA laid charges, until February 8, 2001, when a two-day trial was finally scheduled. (In the meantime there had been two date changes for this trial).

On this day, the rancher & his wife, with his counsel, the judge, the Clerk of the Court, the Crown Prosecutor, 3 or 4 SPCA vehicles, complete with constables, plus, it was said, a pathologist, flown in from Saskatchewan especially for the two-day court case, all appeared at the trial to be held in Didsbury [Alberta]. It was a special court day in Didsbury and no other cases were on the agenda. All this expense for the 10 minutes it took for the Crown Prosecutor to ask for the charge to be withdrawn due to the fact that they did not have the evidence to prove the case.

The entire situation was a fiasco from the beginning. The Rancher's Counsel saw clearly there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations and by letter in June 2000 asked the Crown Prosecutor to drop the charge. Then came the “plea bargain” attempt by the Crown Prosecutor. If the rancher would plea guilty out of court, the prosecutor would lessen the fine...Later, days before February 8, the Crown Prosecutor offered another goodie...If the rancher wrote to two beef publications regarding the identification of cancer eye, and how to cull these animals, the charge would be dropped. Would you, the reader, not understand these two offers as the prosecutor saying, “I [think I messed] up and I need you to make me look good, so kiss my hind end and I'll drop the charge”. The Rancher said, “See you in Court”. And so he did for 10 minutes they did on February 8, 2001.

How much did it cost taxpayers to hold this trial???? Just a wild guess would probably be an underestimation. The whole case was a joke. What isn't a joke is the manner in which subsidized governmental departments handle matters without respect of citizens at the Taxpayers expense...One might say there was even double dipping here as I read in the Canadian Cattlemen Magazine (Jan. 2001)...Alberta SPCA inspectors go too far...that the SPCA received a grant of more than $800,000.

There already have been cases where producers have plead guilty to similar charges and paid the fine only because it was much cheaper and a whole lot less fuss...

--The Crown Prosecutor failed to make a case. The Rancher has no recourse in the retrieving any of the several thousand dollars in legal fees he incurred. Furthermore, this ranch family was not even offered a simple apology by the Crown nor the SPCA for causing them unnecessary frustration.

Ladies and gentlemen...I ask you...who was in distress...the cow or the Rancher doing what he has always done to build a distinctive herd of cattle...and maintaining their integrity.

That story sums up what has to be done with the bill. There are hundreds and thousands of people who are in an industry who love animals. That is probably one of the main reasons why they are in the industry, as I am sure my colleague would agree, because they love animals. They know what they are doing. They know how to take care of them. Yes, they will run across problems. That is why they bring in veterinarians, spend thousands of dollars looking after herds and do all the right things. However under this kind of law they are guaranteed nothing in the way of protection for doing what is normal, ordinary, every day livestock enterprising. We cannot allow that.

Yes, we want to stop cruelty to animals. Yes, we want to protect all wildlife the best way we can. We want to continue doing the things we do with regard to their safety. We want to increase fines and prosecutions for those idiots out there who have no regard for the animal as living item.

However the bill does not protect the ranchers. What it will do is let the minister stand up and repeatedly say “that will never happen”. He has done that before. If that is the case, then put it in the bill so it never does happen, because it has happened in the past. The bill would not prevent it from happening again.

If the member across the way cannot sit for a second and use his brain to think and ensure that the bill makes absolutely certain that the privileges of the good, hard working citizens, taxpayers of this land who thrive on providing an industry from which we benefit, who enter this enterprise are not abused, then we will have made a dreadful mistake.

I hope my friend from Edmonton, Alberta, the member from that party, recognizes what I am saying is true. He knows what ranching is all about in that neck of the woods, and I know he does.

The bill would ensure that this would happen under the present criminal code. Good grief, think what would happen if this bill replaced that criminal code section, which pulls animals out of a certain area. I do not know what the member is using, but it is not his head. I hope he will give it a shake and wake up.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support Bill C-15B as it is currently written. However I will comment on the wording of an amendment to send Bill C-15 back to committee because the amendment is based on a false assumption that is inconsistent with the status of animals in common law.

The amendment assumes it is necessary to expressly state in law that animals can be used for lawful purposes. It assumes that if legislators did not do so the use of animals would be illegal. It assumes that if one wanted to use animals for a particular reason it would need to be authorized by statute.

I recognize the concerns raised by the hon. members who say that unless specific reference is made in Bill C-15B to the defences of lawful justification, excuses or colour of right, the use of animals for industry would become illegal. They are saying the defences are needed to render the use of animals lawful.

That is a false assumption. It is important to look at the argument more closely because it raises the question of what the status of animals has been historically. What was the status of animals in common law prior to the enactment of animal cruelty legislation? Did their use have to be expressly recognized in order to be lawful?

The answer is no. The status of animals in early common law before animal cruelty laws were enacted was described in the case of Standard Sausage Co. v. Lee, a 1933 decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. In that case Mr. Justice Martin confirmed that before legislation was passed in Britain in the 1800s making cruelty to animals a crime, members of the animal kingdom were at the mercy of the wanton brutality of their owners.

The early justification for animal cruelty laws focused on the morally corrupting influence that witnessing animal cruelty had on humans. It was felt that humans who saw people being cruel to or abusing animals believed it was easy to move on to other acts of violence. Bill C-15B does not talk about the use of animals which has been done historically. It talks about the abuse of animals. No one is questioning the use of animals. This is about abuse of animals.

In early common law animals had no rights or interests per se. The property rights of animal owners were protected but there was no prohibition against owners or anyone else abusing animals. The lawful use of animals is already protected. Bill C-15B would expressly prohibit the unlawful use or abuse of animals.

This is the reverse of the assumption made by some hon. members that under Bill C-15B all use of animals would be illegal unless there was recognition of the use of animals in statute. It is clear that since the inception of the animal cruelty provisions of the criminal code a minimum standard of behaviour has applied to everyone.

There is either a lack of understanding of historical common law or a lack of understanding of the history of animal cruelty legislation. That may be why the amendment is being brought forward. It could also be a red herring. It is one of the two. I do not know which. If it is a red herring it is sad because it would put in the place of good legislation a trumped up charge that did not apply at all.

I do not think anyone in the House would condone the abuse of animals. That is what Bill C-15B is talking about. Let us expressly prohibit the abuse of animals. The use of animals is lawful in many areas of law. That would not change under the bill. I would like to see people here stand and say they condone the abuse of animals because if they do not support Bill C-15B that is what they are doing.

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, although waxing eloquent the previous member missed a fairly major point regarding the submissions of ranchers, farmers, researchers and so on. We in the Canadian Alliance want to make it clear at the beginning that we in no way condone intentional acts of cruelty toward animals. We would without a doubt support increased penalties for offences relating to such acts. However there are ways to do it other than those the minister has proposed.

As has been mentioned in the House by others today and previously, there are animal rights groups that target livestock producers and label them as cruel, inhumane and barbaric. We have seen this. We have been monitoring it on the Internet and elsewhere. One such group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or PETA, has launched an anti-dairy campaign targeting schoolchildren.

I take offence to that. We have a lot of dairy farmers in Saskatchewan. My riding has probably the highest concentration of dairy farmers in the province. They are hard-working people who take care of their livestock. They need to do so for the sake of the bottom line. Indirectly targeting these people is something I am greatly opposed to and offended by. The Canadian Alliance is concerned Bill C-15B would arm groups like PETA and others with a powerful new tool to use against farmers, dairy farmers, ranchers and others whose livelihood requires careful care and treatment of animals.

The official opposition agrees with the majority of Canadians who want to see harsher penalties for those who mistreat or deliberately abuse animals. However because of the way Bill C-15B is currently worded many ranchers, hunters, medical researchers and so on might be subject to harassing prosecutions. They could be convicted of animal abuse even though they properly care for their animals.

Groups such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals claim they have no intention of using Bill C-15B to harass farmers and researchers. On the other hand there are groups like the Animal Alliance of Canada whose director, Liz White, hints she would use the legislation to attack animal producers. I will put it on record again if it is not already there. She stated:

My worry is that people think 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 the conviction to lay charges. That’s what this is all about. Make no mistakes about it.

The Minister of Justice has the ability to introduce legislation. However I cannot for the life of me understand why he does not introduce legislation that would strengthen and modernize the current cruelty to animals provisions of the criminal code without threatening the people who use and care for animals.

The minister has chosen to go a different route and not listen to the many submissions of those calling for changes to the bill. He has refused to explicitly protect farmers, ranchers, fishermen, hunters and medical researchers. He has refused to be explicit in the legislation and ensure the courts would not be able to interpret Bill C-15B in a way parliament did not intend.

In light of these refusals we are concerned the Liberals may be counting on the bill to reach much further than they publicly state in the House. The Canadian Alliance will continue to demand that the government amend Bill C-15B to ensure farmers, ranchers and medical researchers would remain protected, that their concerns would be taken into account, and that there would be no problems down the road with people going to court and using the legislation to the detriment of these individuals.

The bill's definition of animal must be amended. The present definition reads:

--a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

The definition is far too broad. It could interfere with the ability of farmers to eliminate pests and rodents which are destructive to their livelihood. We had a gopher problem in Saskatchewan we needed to deal with. Out on the range a problem like that can hurt other animals. If a horse gets caught in one of the holes it can create problems for the horse's owner who may be trying to conduct a ranching business. We need the amendment for that reason.

We are calling for the retention of the animal cruelty provisions in the property section of the criminal code. The criminal code currently provides protection from harassing prosecutions to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. It does so through the phrase cited by the hon. member opposite concerning legal justification, excuse or colour of right. Bill C-15B would move the animal cruelty provisions out of the property offences section of the criminal code and into a section of their own, thereby effectively removing the legal justification protection.

I will quickly summarize. We in the Canadian Alliance in no way condone intentional acts of cruelty toward animals. We support increasing the penalties for offences relating to such acts. We should hike them up significantly to send a strong message to those who would abuse or deliberately hurt and maim animals in some cases for their own perverse pleasure.

New animal cruelty legislation might cause the courts to interpret such offences in a different light. As we have said, it could have significant detrimental implications for farmers, hunters and other agricultural producers who depend on animals for their livelihoods.

Moving the cruelty provisions from property offences to a new separate section would elevate the status of animals in the eyes of the courts. No one can deny that. The defences that apply to individuals who want to protect themselves against harassment and malicious charges would no longer apply under the new section.

The former minister stated that what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would still be lawful after the bill received royal assent. If it is not the former justice minister's intention to change what is lawful today why did she not go the route of raising penalties for those who perpetrate cruelty on animals? That is the way we would have preferred her to approach the matter.

I will again make plain our longstanding opposition to the Firearms Act. We in the Canadian Alliance oppose the amendments to the Firearms Act proposed by Bill C-15B on the basis that the act should be repealed altogether. Messing around with it or tweaking the edges to no account is not something we are favourable to. It should be repealed and removed altogether.

For these reasons we in my party oppose Bill C-15B as it stands.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-15B, specifically the cruelty to animals provision of the bill which is of particular concern to residents in my riding. I will be addressing three specific aspects of the bill: the definition of animal, private prosecutions under the bill, and the inclusion of the terms wilfully and negligently

I will begin by discussing in general terms the objectives of cruelty to animals provisions in the bill. Bill C-15B has two primary objectives: to consolidate, modernize and simplify the existing scheme of animal cruelty offences; and to increase existing maximum penalties and provide new sentencing tools to enhance the effectiveness of the offence provisions.

The first objective would be achieved by removing inconsistent and confusing terminology. It would also achieved by removing archaic distinctions between different types of animals. For example, section 444 deals exclusively with cattle, which I note are defined in the criminal code to include other named domesticated animals as well. Section 445 deals exclusively with animals kept for a lawful purpose and subsection 446(1)(f) deals only with birds.

The amendments would further rationalize the law by distinguishing between offences of criminal negligence and offences requiring subjective intent and providing separate penalty regimes for each type of offence.

Creation of a new part of the criminal code for animal cruelty offences would further the aims of modernization and simplification. The new part would better reflect the policy of the existing law, in place since 1953, that society has an interest in protecting animals from intentional cruelty and criminal neglect and that this interest is independent of their status as property.

However, because the offences were left in Part XI, a part of the code dealing with offences in respect of certain property, there is a lack of clarity and consistency in the law about the fact that animals, whether property or not, have a capacity to feel pain. It is the capacity to feel which is addressed by prohibitions against the infliction of unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. Creation of a new part would be a more accurate reflection of the principle upon which the law is based.

Those involved in the investigation and prosecution of cruelty offences report that some criminal justice officials fail to treat cruelty offences with sufficient seriousness, tending to view them as property crimes, such as simple mischief.

There is growing evidence of a link between cruelty to animals and violence against people, including domestic violence and even child abuse. In recognition of this link, animal cruelty offences are best viewed as offences of violence. The continued classification of these offences as crimes against property interests fails to educate the public and the justice system about the true nature of the crimes.

A new offence would also be created to cover a gap in the current law. Under the present law, a person with a lawful excuse for killing an animal is prohibited only from doing so in any way that causes unnecessary pain. This means that a person might use depraved methods of killing an animal for sheer enjoyment and so long as the animal dies instantly, no offence is committed. Although the animal has been spared pain or suffering, society recognizes that brutality or vicious conduct is outside the scope of acceptable behaviour and in fact may pose a serious threat to society at large. 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, of which we have seen cases. The new offence is created to update the law so that this type of behaviour would be punishable.

The second objective of the animal cruelty provisions in Bill C-15B would involve enhancing available penalties. This would be achieved by making existing summary conviction offences dual procedure, allowing the crown to proceed by way of indictment for the more serious offences. Where the crown proceeds by indictment, maximum penalties would be increased to five years for offences of subjective intent and two years for offences of criminal negligence. An amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights raised the maximum fines available for intentional cruelty and criminal neglect where the offence is proceeded with by summary conviction to $10,000 and $5,000, respectively.

The maximum duration of an order prohibiting an offender from owning or having custody of an animal has been extended from two years to life. The courts are given a new power to order a convicted offender to repay to a person or to an organization the costs associated with the caring for the animal in respect of which the offender was convicted.

The term animal is defined in Bill C-15B as a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain. Some people suggest that this definition is too broad. The definition is actually narrower, not broader, than the existing law. Under the current cruelty provisions animal is not defined. At the present time the courts are free to interpret the word animal in accordance with everyday meaning resulting in an interpretation broad enough to include most, if not all, members of the animal kingdom and certainly including many invertebrates. The definition is included to clarify and simplify the law by introducing a greater degree of precision in the law's application, and by providing a rational and principled definition which accords with the underlying purpose of the cruelty provisions.

From a scientific perspective, vertebrates are generally viewed as having sufficiently developed nervous systems to allow for sense and pain perception. They are therefore, as a group, all given protection under the law. However some invertebrates have a developed nervous system and therefore also must have the capacity to feel pain. It would be arbitrary to permanently and absolutely deny protection to some animals because they happen to be classified as invertebrates. Bill C-15B would create a mechanism that allows the crown to proceed in appropriate cases. The onus is on the crown prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the definition of animal has been satisfied.

A broad definition of animal is consistent not only with definitions found in some provincial statutes but also with statutes in the United States. The following may be of interest to members: “does not include a human being” is found in Alberta; “non-human living being with developed nervous systems” is found in Manitoba and New Brunswick; “includes every living creature” in the state of Arkansas; “every living creature except man”, in the state of Maryland; “does not include the human race, but includes every other human creature”, in the state of Nevada; and the list goes on. There is no indication that the definitions of animal used in these jurisdictions have generated inappropriate use of the legislation.

The concern has been raised that the new cruelty provisions would make it easier for interest groups to prosecute persons involved in legitimate practices involving animals. This argument is made even though the test of liability for intentional cruelty and criminal neglect in the bill has not been changed.

The investigation and prosecution of the criminal code offences are the responsibility of local or provincial police forces and provincial attorneys general. Attorneys general decide when to pursue a charge laid by the police. In some cases, humane societies are mandated with investigating and prosecuting cruelty offences. These humane societies are constituted by provincial or territorial legislation and they exercise statutory powers granted to them by the legislation.

In every case brought to the attention of criminal justice officials, a number of considerations are taken into account in deciding whether to proceed, including whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. Procedures that ensure pre-trial screening of charges by prosecutors are more prevalent now than they were in the past and provide an additional safeguard against frivolous or vexatious prosecutions. Some 100 years of experience with animal cruelty laws shows no evidence of inappropriate use of criminal law by authorities to attack standard industry practices.

Private citizens are generally entitled to lay a criminal charge. However, in every case the attorney general in the jurisdiction retains the ability to intervene and take over the charge, and may withdraw the charges.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

You are absolutely wrong. There are hundreds of cases out there.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

My colleague across the way says that is bull.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

There are hundreds of cases out there.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there may be hundreds of cases in his view but I am providing him with the facts. He may not want to listen to the facts but that is up to him. We had to listen to members from that party, I would expect that they would listen to us in terms of the information.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

That is full of bull, like you.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the time has come to move forward on the bill and I urge hon. members, including my colleagues across the way, to listen, learn about it and support the bill.

National Police Week

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage all hon. members to join in the recognition of National Police Week in Canada from May 12 to May 18.

National Police Week allows Canadians to show their appreciation for the tremendous job being done by members of police forces across Canada in protecting our homes and communities.

The government understands the importance and role of Canada's police. That is why we have made significant investments in the RCMP to fight terrorism and make Canadians safer. Especially in the difficult months since September 11, the men and women of Canadian law enforcement rose to answer the call of duty and continue to make us proud.

During this week all Canadians are encouraged to reflect on the role played by Canadian police officers in making Canada the safe country that it is.

St. Barbara's Russian Orthodox Cathedral

[Peter Goldring, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Centre-East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, St. Barbara's Russian Orthodox Cathedral: a historical Edmonton spiritual landmark with its picturesque dome crowned by a triple bar cross, symbolic of Orthodox churches around the world; and 100 years of community faith service, nearly 50 years in the present edifice alone.

For 30 years it has been the church of my family; our wedding, our children's christenings, our family's faith centre.

Father John, our priest for 20 years, whose presence is still felt as we gather to pray. Father Grigory ministers to our family and friends today.

Congratulations to St. Barbara's on its 100th anniversary of ministering to many thousands over the century. May our faith community continue to be spiritually served for another 100 years and beyond in this consecrated landmark.

International Law Competition

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House that the final rounds of Le Concours Rousseau International Law Competition are being held this week in Montreal at the Faculty of Law of McGill University.

The Concours Rousseau is an annual event which brings together law students from around the world for a week of creative legal thinking, oral advocacy and social events, all in the spirit of international comradery. After having recently won qualifying rounds in their home countries, the members of 12 teams arrived in Montreal from Argentina, Belgium, Benin, France, Germany, Romania, Switzerland and Togo. Two Canadian law school teams also qualified to compete in the Concours Rousseau.

It is especially fitting that the competition is being held in Canada. The problem the students will be debating this year is a question of law related to the International Criminal Court, the most dramatic development in international humanitarian and criminal law since Nuremberg and a historic milestone toward ending the culture of impunity. Canada has been at the forefront of the international campaign to establish the ICC and to bring the treaty into effect.

I invite all members of the House to join me in congratulating all the participants in the Concours Rousseau as we also celebrate the coming into effect of the ICC treaty.

Battle of the Atlantic

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on November 25, 1944, Her Majesty's Canadian Ship Shawinigan was on an independent anti-submarine patrol in the Cabot Strait when it was torpedoed by U1228. The Shawinigan sank in less than four minutes. All hands were lost, including nine Manitobans.

This past Sunday these nine brave men were honoured at a ceremony that took place at HMCS Chippewa in conjunction with the commemoration of the Battle of the Atlantic.

Members of their families were present to honour: Lieutenant William Edmund Callan, age 30; Engine Room Artificer 4 James Campbell, age 23; Able Seaman Ralph Earp, age 18; Ordinary Seaman Clifford Eppler, age 19; Lieutenant John Lawrence, age 28; Stoker 1 Glenn Murray, age 19; Petty Officer Howard Parsons, age 20; Ordinary Seaman James Phillips, age 20; and Able Seaman Clayton White, age 19.

All lost their lives fighting for their country and are commemorated at the Halifax Memorial which lists the names of 3,257 Canadian men and women who were buried at sea.

Lori's Room Fund

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 11 the third annual Lori's Room walkathon will take place to benefit the St. Joseph's Health Centre Foundation and the Lori's Room Fund.

Established by her parents, Doug and Lorna Martin in 1996, the Lori's Room Fund honours the memory of Lorna-Lynn Martin, a young woman who struggled against a particularly virulent form of cancer which eventually caused her passing.

The Lori's Room Fund has already refurbished and refurnished every patient room on the sixth floor at St. Joseph's. In addition, the fund is now focusing on the establishment of the Lorna-Lynn Martin chemotherapy clinic. Work has already begun on this important addition.

Over the past few years the support of the Lori's Room Fund has been overwhelming. Through the support of many families, friends, staff and members of our community the Lori's Room Fund continues to grow.

National March for Life

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, at noon today the National March for Life will congregate on Parliament Hill as they do every year. They meet to mourn the 100,000 children who lose their lives through abortion every year.

For the nine months a baby is in the mother's womb the baby has absolutely no legal protection in Canada. This is because the criminal code states that a baby does not become a human being until they have completely emerged from the mother's body.

Eighty-nine percent of my constituents say that the current definition of a human being is unacceptable and, I suspect, if the government were brave enough to ask, it would find that the vast majority of Canadians agree.

For that reason I introduced Motion No. 392 that asks the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to examine this life and death issue and determine if the definition of a human being needs to be amended.

I thank those who have the courage and take the time to speak up for those whose voices cannot be heard.

Laval Chamber of Commerce and Industry

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 2 the Laval Chamber of Commerce and Industry celebrated its 35th anniversary with the Dunamis 2002 gala.

For the 21st consecutive year, awards were given out at the event to Laval businesses contributing to the expansion of that city's business sector.

Awards were presented in a number of different categories: young entrepreneurs, women in business, communications, social and cultural animation. I should point out that there was also one for research, a field of great importance to Laval.

This initiative focused attention on the hard work and major contribution Laval's businesses make to our community.

I join with the people of Laval once again in highlighting the exceptional contribution our local businesses to the economic health of our community.

Congratulations to all the winners.