Debates of June 3rd, 2002

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying we in the NDP support Bill C-15B. However I also want to use this opportunity, as it is intended, to raise a matter with the minister of justice with respect to firearms registry.

He knows that there is a lot of concern, and indeed I have written to him to this effect, about the plans the government has to contract out. I say contract out but when I write the minister, he writes back and says that the government is not contracting out it is outsourcing. I have not taken a whole lot of comfort in the distinction between contracting out and outsourcing. Whatever we call it, some private company will have charge of all the information that will be gathered as a result of registration.

This is a needless provocation on the part of the government. The idea is that this information be secret, that it be held in confidentiality and I do not know why the government is proceeding to further aggravate an already aggravated situation by pursuing this policy. Would the government reconsider that policy?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very good point. Bill C-15B deals with the question of cruelty to animals. As well, it deals with the firearms registration system.

Bill C-15B would streamline the administration process of the whole firearms registry. As the hon. member just said, we are looking at the possibility of proceeding with some outsourcing, which we are doing in all departments across government. We will still keep the responsibility of managing the whole program but to be more efficient and effective, to keep providing the population with very good services and to keep improving the system, we will proceed with some outsourcing to be more precise with regard to technology.

Of course, needless to mention, we will ensure we protect privacy which is a very important part of our duty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate at the outset that the Progressive Conservative Party supports many elements of the bill, particularly those which put in place a more severe sentencing scheme and raise the bar as far as prosecution of those who deliberately choose to abuse animals is concerned, but the problem, as has been pointed out by previous speakers and throughout the debate, is that it takes the animal sections out of the property sections of the criminal code, thus removing some of the protections for the very legitimate and commonly accepted practices for animal husbandry and for scientific experiments.

My question directly to the Minister of Justice is: What assurances are there for those involved in scientific experimentation with animals, those in the fishing and agriculture communities, the dairy farmers, the fur industry, those who are currently afforded these protections of colour of right excuse and justification?

Is it not fair to say that all the objectives with respect to the prosecution and the deterrence elements of the legislation, and it is uncommon for the Liberal government to put emphasis on deterrence, could be achieved by leaving the property section intact and giving those protections to those individuals who are not the target of the bill?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question raised by the hon. member. Let me repeat that in regard to the available defences we are talking about the very same defences recognized, as I have said, by the Criminal Lawyers' Association. We are talking about subsection 8(3) of the criminal code.

With regard to the question of property, to qualify a good or something as property essentially does not belong to our jurisdiction. It is a provincial matter. Creating a specific section within the criminal code with regard to cruelty to animals puts us as a country basically in line with many other administrations in the world.

Bill C-15B, as I said, has been due for a long time. We have to proceed with it to modernize our legislation. As well, we are creating a definition of animal, therefore leaving to the court the obligation to define this on a case by case basis.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has no business invoking time allocation on this piece of legislation. It has said we have had 40 speakers. That is only 13% of speakers if everyone spoke only once on the bill.

This is an extremely important piece of legislation that could have an incredibly large impact on farmers, ranchers and other people who make a living dealing with animals. When asked about this, the former minister of justice, the member for Edmonton West, said not to worry about it, that nothing in the legislation would really change anything, which was a very odd response to that kind of question. If there is nothing in the legislation that would change anything in terms of the ways in which people deal with livestock and animals, then why is the legislation even before the House?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of time allocation, I think I was clear at the beginning of my involvement in the sense that we are talking about third reading, five days and 40 speakers, but it is 40 speakers at just this stage in the process. We can imagine how many people have talked about the bill in the past at the various stages that a bill has to go through.

The question is interesting because it gives me the opportunity to talk about the bill. As I said, we have to modernize the section within the criminal code. We also have to make sure that we put an end to the distinctions with regard to different types of animals within the criminal code. We are creating a definition of animal. We are raising the penalties with regard to sentencing, which is important. As well, we are creating a brand new offence, which is the one of viciously killing an animal.

We really need the bill and we have to proceed with it.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to be clear. The criminal code already had section 8.

I would like to ask the minister why there was a section 459 dealing with property specifically. It is not because the section 8 defence was in place—and still is—that the provisions of section 429 were specifically introduced in the section on property.The section on animals was changed and a new one was created, with which the Bloc Quebecois agrees. All that we are asking is for the defences set out in section 429 under property be included in the new one.

He, as a fisherman, and his friends in the advertising business both know the value of fishing and want this protection. He tells us there is implicit protection. What difference does it make to make it explicit, if the minister thinks that these defences are in place? I would like him to explain the reason for this.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, section 429 of the criminal code was in place to provide general coverage for the various elements concerned by the category of property offences.

Essentially, what has to be understood is that section 429 did not provide an automatic defence and protection where cruelty to animals is concerned. What is important to understand now is that section 8(3) of the criminal code covers all defences. Thus all the defences available are therefore now in place within Bill C-15B.

I would, moreover, like to point out that the criminal lawyers association find this totally acceptable.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is going to support the bill. The minister just returned from a meeting of the ministers of fisheries of the North Atlantic. Countries like Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Russia all state that one of the biggest concerns they have about fish stocks is the increasing, ballooning mammal population in their respective domains. Already here in Canada we know the problems we are going through with the seal hunt off Newfoundland and Labrador.

I just wonder how the minister is going to explain, first, how this piece of legislation is going to give protection to the people who have to prosecute the seal hunt, and second, if the seal hunt is wiped out because of such legislation and in regard to the support this will give groups that are against seal hunts, what is going to happen to, number one, the imbalance in our oceans, and number two, to the fish stocks around our shores and those of similar countries?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question on fish stocks, it is not part of my mandate and I therefore refer the hon. member to the minister responsible.

We all know that the bill before the House offers a balanced approach that respects existing activities and makes sure that we will keep protecting the animals. In the bill we essentially modernize the existing provisions of the criminal code. We make sure we have a definition of animal, which did not exist before. As I said, we also are creating a brand new offence of viciously killing.

Let me also repeat that the common law defences that exist in subsection 8(3) of the criminal code are there. Those defences existed before and they still exist.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has stated that it is not its intention to change existing farming or research practices, yet it has refused to write into the bill any protection for farmers, ranchers or medical researchers. Given the Liberal record of abuses of property rights, many do not believe the Liberal statement that the bill will change nothing.

Why has the Minister of Justice refused to write into the legislation explicit protections for existing practices for farmers and medical researchers?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to put it quite simply, it is implicit in the bill. As we have said and as I have said many times, those who are carrying on lawful activities with regard to animals, respecting the framework of the bill, will not have any problem.

I would like to repeat what I said before. One of the aims and goals of Bill C-15B is to modernize the offences in the criminal code sections to make sure that we will be in line with much of the legislation that exists all over the world. The bill will make sure that we will be able to compare ourselves with some other countries. Honestly, another good point is that we are creating the definition of animal, which did not exist before.

I do believe that subsection 8(3) of the criminal code will give them all the defences they need. As to whether the defences that exist now will still be there with this brand new bill, the question has been raised many times, and the answer is yes.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, animal rights groups were recently quite busy in my constituency, once at a circus sponsored by a service group and also at an auction ring, where auctions are held every week. The animal rights people warned the people who sponsored the circus and the manager of the auction ring that their practices were considered to be cruel and that if they were to continue they would be reported.

My question to the minister is this: To whom will these people report and who will be the judge of what constitutes animal cruelty?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we know the justice system in Canada and the way it works, with regard to criminal law it is quite simple. We know that normally there is a police investigation with regard to criminal code offences. An attorney general has to make a decision in each and every case. We know that those people are experts. We do not foresee any abuse of the bill. The way Bill C-15B is drafted it offers all the protection for the industry. To be more precise, if we look at criminal code subsection 8(3), the bill offers the same defences that previously existed.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is not simply to modernize the criminal code. Instead, it is to provide greater protection for animals.

This is the primary objective, to add provisions to provide protection, rather than removing rights of defence. These rights of defence that the minister has given with section 429 of the criminal code, by describing them as general as regards the property section, well I am sorry, but these have been added.

Section 429 of the criminal code contains three things. It refers to legal justification, excuse and colour of right. Therefore, when it comes to section 8 of the criminal code, which has been around for a long time, pertaining to the general rights of defence in common law, specific rights have been added to this subsection of section 429 of the criminal code.

Does the minister understand this? We are not simply talking about protecting the rights of fishermen alone. I think that this example will speak to him; he likes fishing. There is also the animal industry, trapping, hunting, the whole scientific research industry. Is he interested in the rights of all of these people?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fail to see why the question is being asked again.

I mentioned earlier that the criminal lawyers association approves of the government's approach.

Incidentally, there was—

[An hon. member]

No, no.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Listen, I will read the following:

The committee heard from a wide variety of groups with diverse views on the issue of animal cruelty.

At the committee hearing the Criminal Lawyers' Association confirmed that removal of the animal cruelty provisions out of the property section would not cause accused persons to lose any available defences.

I think that this is clear enough. However, once again, to answer the various concerns, a provision to allow specific references to section 8(3) of the criminal code was added to the bill. I am referring to section 182.5 of Bill C-15B, which reads that:

For greater certainty, subsection 8(3) applies in respect of proceedings for an offence under this Part.

This seems clear enough.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15B is just part of a long list of threats facing our agriculture community right now, a lot of which has been brought on by the government. We have the species at risk act, the Kyoto protocol, the combat we are having in the international trade industry and the use of pesticides in Canada. The list goes on and on.

The minister of agriculture and his colleagues have been quick to say they want to avoid crisis management in agriculture. Do they not realize that implementing the bill will bring our farmers, our ranchers and our animal researchers into court day after day to fend off the attacks by the extreme animal rights groups?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to fear in regard to what has been raised. Let me refer to a previous question with regard to the system that exists in Canada. I do believe that with the system we have there is no way we will have abuse of the legislation. To be more precise, the hon. member should have a look at the legislation per se. I think it will offer to the industry a much more interesting protection in the sense that Bill C-15B is there in order to simplify the existing provisions within the criminal code so that parameters in the framework of the legislation will be clearer and easier to understand.

Once more, it is not there to go against the industry in any way, not at all. It is there in order to make sure that all people will better understand the legislation. As well, I would like to repeat for the industry that the defences that existed before are still there. To be more precise, we have been sure to add a clause within Bill C-15B in order to make a specific reference to subsection 8(3) of the criminal code in regard to criminal defences.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the minister just stated that he does not expect there would be any abuse of the legislation.

The minister may or may not be aware that the sport of horse pulling and ox pulling is well instilled in the culture of Nova Scotia particularly on the south shore. Literally hundreds of teams of oxen and hundreds of teams of horses are hooked to drags to see which can actually pull the most weight. It is reminiscent of the days when we had domestic animals for draft horses, beasts of burden.

Can the minister guarantee that particular sport activity will not be shut down by the legislation? It has been challenged in the past and will be challenged in the future. There is nothing in the bill to prevent it from being shut down.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what a strange question.

With the legal framework we have in place and the existing legal process, I can guarantee that the bill will be applied in the normal way. The legislation will be applied to ensure that we achieve the aims and goals of Bill C-15B. At the same time we will make sure the industry will be kept involved through its normal activities regarding the use of animals.

It is important to mention once again that the Criminal Lawyers' Association was involved in the process regarding the question of subsection 8(3) to make sure that those defences that already exist will be taken into consideration under Bill C-15B. We made sure that a provision was created within the bill specifically referring to subsection 8(3) of the criminal code.

We are talking about common law defences which were there before. They are still there.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in order for the legislation to go through, the minister and the government whip must have the full co-operation of the backbenchers of the Liberal Party. I have it on good authority that the minister has been advising backbench Liberal members that whatever necessary amendments may have to be done in order to make the legislation proper will be done in the Senate after the bill passes third reading in the House.

I would like to have a simple answer. Has the minister or anyone on his behalf made those assurances in order to get people in his party on side? The answer is either yes or no.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to be careful and respect the Senate process. There are different stages. The bill is in the House of Commons at this point in time after which it will be referred to the Senate. The Senate will have to look at the bill. We will see what takes place at that time.

Bill C-15B is a good bill. It modernizes the existing sections of the criminal code and creates a definition of animals to increase penalties. As well it creates the new offence of viciously killing animals.

Let us proceed in the House of Commons and respect as well the process on the Senate side.

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

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Wild Rose probably has one of the largest cattle ranching areas in the country. It is a very successful operation.

Cattlemen go through their herds on a fairly regular basis to find animals that have defects. It could be lump jaw caused by some weed. It could be a cancerous eye, a hoof disease or any reason at all that would cause the animal to be culled and sent to auction.

I can tell the minister that when the animals arrive at the auction there is always an investigation regarding farmers and ranchers keeping a cow in distress. That is a common charge brought forward by the SPCA. They do what they can with the animals when they are sold at the auction but inevitably there will be a charge brought forward and the farmers will be charged for keeping animals in distress. In every case the farmers went ahead and paid the fine.