Debates of May 14th, 2019

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is interesting that the minister indicated that he received a briefing. I used to receive those briefings too. There was always a report attached to them.

Especially given the fact that there were 8,000 documents released, I do not assume that department officials went through each document verbally, so I am wondering once again if the minister would provide the document upon which the verbal briefing was provided to him.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, if you give me 10 minutes, I am willing to read the note that describes the whole process for the documents.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, that was not the question. My question specifically at the very beginning was whether the minister would order an independent inquiry through his powers under the Inquiries Act. His response was that he already received a report. That is not a report.

Would the minister like to exactly clarify for us, so we can get to the nuts and bolts of it, what kind of report has been issued? Was it verbal? Is it real? If it is real, can we have a copy of it so we can understand and the Canadian public can finally understand what happened in this case?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, as I have stated, I received a briefing in the course of events at which I was assured that we were taking all steps to meet our third party records application responsibilities. I am satisfied.

I have offered to read a description of what the process was that was set up. I am satisfied, and the court complimented us at the end of the case, that we took an extraordinary number of documents with extraordinary complexity, and we managed to put them through a process in which a judge would have the final say as to whether they would be produced or not and whether they would be redacted or not.

I am very satisfied that we in the Department of Justice fulfilled our responsibilities.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am very concerned that the minister and the government are not taking this matter seriously.

Let us fast forward to more hearings that happened on March 28 of this year. This time it was a battle over redactions to memos. I would like to know from the minister if we could receive copies of the October 19, 2018, 64-page memo from Paul Shuttle to the former clerk of the privy council, Michael Wernick; the October 24, 2018, 60-page memo from the former clerk to the Prime Minister; and the December 22, 2017, memo from Paul Shuttle to the former clerk of the privy council, Michael Wernick.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, I point out that with respect to these documents, the judge upheld the claim of solicitor-client privilege. They are privileged documents.

I dispute the premise the hon. member stated that we are not taking this seriously. I as minister take this matter very seriously. The department takes it seriously. The government takes it seriously.

We put together a very strong process, which again, exceptionally, put the final decision, including decisions on cabinet confidence, in the hands of a judge and not in the hands of the clerk of the privy council.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

I do not know what is worse, Mr. Chair. A minister stands in the House without a grasp on his file and indicates something so wrong and says that a judge made a decision in a case. A judge clearly did not make a decision. I would submit that the minister should go back and take a look at the hearings between April 16 and 17. At the end, they indicated that there were no decisions made, and indeed, they were coming back for an update on May 8, 2019.

Would the minister like to clarify whether the judge made a decision on the redacted documents, as I asked?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thought I was quite clear in that answer.

Again, as Minister of Justice, I have been satisfied that the government and the Department of Justice took this matter very seriously, that we put in place a process that would provide for the defence to have the widest possible access to the widest number of documents that were potentially relevant and that they would then be winnowed down to a smaller number of documents that could be analyzed.

We had a process for analyzing those documents with respect to cabinet confidence, solicitor-client privilege and litigation privilege, and a judge complimented us at the end of the case.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I will be providing 10 minutes of remarks followed by some questions for the minister.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak today. I will focus my remarks on Bill C-84, which was passed by the House of Commons on May 8, 2019. It proposes a number of important reforms to address bestiality and animal fighting. These reforms would offer greater protections to children, other vulnerable persons and animals.

With respect to bestiality, the bill responds to the 2016 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. D.L.W. in which the court found that, absent a statutory definition of bestiality, the common law meaning of the term is limited to penetrative sex acts with animals. The consequence of this is that a gap has been identified in the law: bestiality offences do not apply to non-penetrative sexual acts with animals. This leaves children and other vulnerable persons without adequate protections from all acts of bestiality. Child protection and animal protection advocates, and members of the public, have called for legislative action to address this gap.

Bill C-84 proposes to remedy this by adding a definition to the bestiality offences that would include “any contact, for a sexual purpose, with an animal.” As mentioned by other hon. members, this definition would not apply to legitimate animal husbandry activities, such as artificial insemination. In fact, agricultural stakeholders have expressed their views, both in writing to the former minister of justice and before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, that they have no concerns that the proposed definition would apply to current agricultural standards.

This proposed amendment received broad support from parliamentarians and witnesses who appeared before the justice committee. It pleases me to see members of all parties come together in support of a common desire to provide stronger protections for the most vulnerable members of society.

The committee also passed two motions related to enhancing Criminal Code protections for bestiality offences.

The first motion proposed to amend the Criminal Code to provide that a court may issue a prohibition or restitution order for a person convicted of a bestiality offence. In the case of a prohibition order, the court would have the authority to issue an order prohibiting the person from possessing, having control over or residing with an animal for any period, up to a lifetime ban. A restitution order would be available to order the person to repay the costs to an individual or organization of maintaining the abused animal. These types of orders are already available for the animal cruelty offences, and it makes sense that they should also be available for the bestiality offences.

The second motion passed by the committee would add the bestiality simpliciter offence to the list of offences for which a convicted person must adhere to the requirements of the National Sex Offender Registry. I believe that this is a meaningful amendment to the bill, as it would increase protections for public safety by recognizing that oftentimes, those who abuse animals will also commit violent acts against people, and as such, these individuals should be tracked.

Other hon. members supporting the bill mentioned that they thought the reforms did not go far enough to increase protections for animals. However, I believe the bill does offer important changes that target the most vicious forms of animal abuse, bestiality and animal fighting.

The amendments in the bill would address animal fighting in two ways. First, the amendments would increase the list of prohibited activities that support the animal fighting industry, including promoting, arranging or receiving money for animal fighting. This would make it easier to prosecute an animal fighting offence by clearly setting out the prohibited acts, thereby encouraging more prosecutions under the Criminal Code. The second amendment would expand the prohibition against keeping a cockpit to ensure that the provision applied to keeping an arena for the fighting of any animal. This amendment is particularly important considering that dogfighting is now the main form of animal fighting.

When the bill was being reviewed by the committee, it heard detailed evidence from the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association about the types of injuries that dogs suffered, including deep lacerations, broken bones and infections when forced to fight another dog. Law enforcement has reported that dog fighting, as with many illicit underground operations, is often connected to organized crime.

I am pleased that Bill C-84 will offer additional measures to combat animal fighting and make it easier for the criminal justice system to track these offenders.

The committee also passed a third motion, which the government supports, to delete the section in the offence of keeping a cockpit that required the destruction of birds found in a cockpit. This provision exists because such birds are often injured or trained to be aggressive and are unable to be held with other birds.

I agree with the position that the decision to destroy an animal should be made on a case-by-case basis after the animal has been examined rather than by operation of law. The destruction of animals that are seriously injured or aggressive, with no reasonable chance of recovery or rehabilitation, is already provided for under provincial animal protection legislation and does not need to be included in the Criminal Code. Moreover, it would be inconsistent with the objective of the amendment to the provision, which is to expand the prohibition on cockpits to apply to any animal and then to retain a provision that only applies to birds involved in cockfighting.

The measures proposed by Bill C-84 will strengthen public safety and protections for animals significantly. There has been much discussion about the correlation between violence against animals and violence against humans. In fact, in the United States the FBI has a national database that contains data on incidents of animal abuse in order to prevent violence against animals from escalating to violence against humans, including domestic abuse and serial murders. As well, many victims of domestic violence report that their abusers either abuse or threaten to harm pets in order to assert even more control over the victim. If a child witnesses animal abuse, that itself is a form of child abuse.

I would like to thank the members of the committee and the witnesses who appeared before us for their helpful testimony and important examination of the bill. As a result, three meaningful motions were passed by the committee and then supported in the House. The discussions that have taken place and the suggested amendments have produced a bill that has been strengthened through consensus and collaboration.

It is important that the bill be enacted as soon as possible, given the importance of these proposed amendments.

I have questions for the minister. I have heard from my constituents that they are pleased that our government is taking important steps with Bill C-84. Some even pointed out to me that these reforms did not go far enough. Has the minister encountered this sentiment from Canadians or stakeholders?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for his work in committee, and indeed all committee members, on this bill.

The hon. member is absolutely right when he says that we have a better bill now in front of the other place because of the work the committee did.

We took two pieces that were generally agreed upon, so it was a targeted response on two specific issues. The bill therefore is a meaningful step forward.

It is clear that we need to go further for the protection of animals. I have said publicly that I will undertake to do this. I did it with my parliamentary secretary at a round table with stakeholders in his riding of Parkdale—High Park. We feel this dialogue and discussion, now opened, will lead us to a better place with respect to protection of animals.

[Ali Ehsassi, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Chair, we also heard compelling evidence at committee on the link between animal cruelty offences and violence more generally. What evidence stood out in the minister's mind supporting the claim that persons who abused animals may go on to also commit violence against persons? In other words, are such offences generally gateway offences?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member is absolutely right, both in his question and in his comments, that there appears to be ever-increasing evidence of a violence link between cruelty to animals and domestic violence, sexual and physical abuse of children and other violent crimes.

In 2017, Humane Canada most notably held a national conference, and its final report is online. It is an important piece of evidence. Research from the University of Windsor more recently said that 89% of women who fled to domestic shelters also reported some kind of violence against their pet. As well, there is an FBI investigation in the United States.

Therefore, the evidence is increasing and it seems to uniformly go in the same direction that abuse of animals, violence towards animals is often coupled with violence toward vulnerable human beings.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, could the minister tell us how much has been allocated for the investigation of the leaks relating to Justice Joyal's consideration for appointment to the bench?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, as I have said a number of times in the House, those leaks concerned me greatly. As I said publicly a number of times, I was certain that those leaks did not come from the Department of Justice.

We will have to put together a process in the very near future with respect to the appointment of a Supreme Court judge. We will take steps to ensure leaks do not happen.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, does the minister think it is appropriate to vet the selection of the next judge through a Liberal fundraising or supporter database?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, we have set up with two Supreme Court appointments to date an exceedingly rigorous process. We will do the same with the process as we move forward in order to avoid the kinds of situations we saw with the previous government.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, I understand the minister is partial to oral briefings. Did he receive any oral briefings on which potential justices were Liberal donors?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am not going to comment on that kind of ridiculous question.

We will set up, as we have done with the other two Supreme Court justices who we have named, a rigorous selection committee, which will look at all the candidates who apply.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, has the minister or any current or past member of his staff been contacted by the RCMP with regard to the SNC-Lavalin matter?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, as I have said publicly, certainly within the group of people in my ministry, the answer to that question is no. Again, as I have stated earlier this evening, it was the view of my predecessor that the law was not broken. It was the view of a number of witnesses that the law was not broken. I am going to believe that testimony.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, does the minister know of anyone in government, the PMO, PCO or any ministerial or members' offices who have been contacted by the RCMP as it relates to the SNC-Lavalin scandal?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, I only know the people I know. I cannot possibly answer such a wide-ranging question. I would ask whether the member wants to know if anybody in Canada has been approached.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, based on the wide-ranging implications of the Liberals' scandals, that question may be appropriate, but I will move on.

In the former attorney general's briefing note provided to the justice committee, she said, “I did make another decision at this time — that I would immediately resign if the new attorney general decided to issue a directive in the SNC-Lavalin matter.”

Given that she did in fact resign from cabinet, is it fair to draw a conclusion that the minister, at some point, is in the process of issuing a directive on the SNC-Lavalin matter?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Chair, as I already said earlier this evening, I cannot comment on that matter because there is an appeal in an SNC proceeding before the Federal Court. Anything that I might say might have an impact on that litigation, therefore it is covered by the sub judice rule and litigation privilege.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a half a dozen separate occasions, the Liberal members of the justice committee voted against a variety of inquiries into the SNC-Lavalin scandal and a variety of untoward actions that the Liberal government engaged in.

Did the minister, his staff or officials have conversations about strategy with members of the justice committee prior to any of those votes?