I found John William's statement on page 15 rather amusing: "The issue I was trying to point out in my speech was that the Liberals pander to the special interest groups that would have us eat tofu and vegetarian food for the rest of our lives." Bet you vegetarian tofu eaters didn't know you were part of a special interest group.

38th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 154

Monday, November 21, 2005
Oral Questions
Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.)
The Speaker
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC)
The Speaker
Private Members' Business
Parliament of Canada Act
Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons, Lib.)
Mr. Ken Epp (Edmonton—Sherwood Park, CPC)
Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ)
* * *
Criminal Code
The House resumed from November 14 consideration of the motion.
Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-50, an act to amend the Criminal Code in respect to the
cruelty of animals.
I know most of us in the House have been approached by many of our constituents profoundly and
deeply concerned about the protection of animals, in particular cruelty to animals. I venture to say that
all of us in the House are firmly opposed to the cruelty to animals. It is a motherhood and apple pie type
of issue.
The challenge we had though was trying to ensure that we had a confined piece of legislation that
worked and was able to prevent cruelty to animals. That it would prevent those heinous actions that are
committed by people who must be psychologically deranged to harm animals in that way. However, we
also wanted to have legislation that would enable us to protect and ensure that the normal use of
animals, be it by farmers or in research, would be carried on without the fear of prosecution. That,
indeed, was the challenge that we had.
I think we have come up with a bill that strikes a balance. Over the last while we have shared and
worked with groups, be they in agriculture and farming, or in the scientific and research sector, or the
pharmaceutical areas, to craft a bill that was able to balance those needs. Normal activities would not be
prosecuted, but only those actions that are taken by certain individuals. I might add that we know that
those individuals, particularly when they are younger and commit acts of violence against animals,
torture or even killing animals in a heinous fashion, are actually harbingers of future psychological
problems and in fact future violence.
In other words, the actions by the young who commit these atrocious acts of violence against animals
is a red flag, a harbinger of things that could come in the future, and particularly more egregious violent
acts that take place against humans.
Some interesting studies have been done in fact to map this out. Good scientific research has been
done to demonstrate this, so we now watch for those children and young people who are engaging in
acts of violence against animals. We now know that we have to be very careful and engage these young
people in a way that should offset and prevent future violent actions that we see sometimes in adults.
They study looked at populations of sadistic murderers, sadists, those who have committed violent
acts against adults. Research has found that a majority of those adults who were incarcerated in jails for
committing those violent acts, if we look back in their history, started off committing violent acts
against animals when they were younger. They would torture the family pet, kill the family pet or kill
other pets in the areas. I think the public at long last will be very happy with this bill.
In 2003 the other place made two amendments that the House adopted on this particular initiative.
These two amendments were specifically requested by industry organizations. The reason, as I said
before, was that these two amendments were there to satisfy their comfort level and their fear of
prosecution.
For example, with regard to these two amendments, Canadian farmers said that they were 100%
behind these two amendments and that this amended legislation was technically sound and was as strong
as ever. With that, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture encouraged Parliament to pass this
legislation. Unfortunately, the legislation then died in the other place which is where it continued to be
paid attention to and the amendments were not requested or supported.
Let me fast forward a year. In November 2004, several months after the opening of Parliament, the
Minister of Justice received a letter from a large coalition of industry groups that explicitly requested
retabling of the animal cruelty amendments that had died. This group included a variety of organizations
including the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, the Ontario Farm Animal Council, the Manitoba Cattle
Producers Association, and it also included organizations involved in trapping such as the Canada Mink
Breeders Association and the Fur Council of Canada.
It was also supported by other groups such as the Canadian Animal Health Institute, the Canadian
Association for Laboratory Animal Science, and Canadian research based pharmaceutical groups as well
as the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.
�� (1705)
We have heard from a wide variety of groups. We have passed these amendments through those
groups. They have gained support among these groups. That is why they are in the House today.
These industry organizations wrote to the Minister of Justice before the legislation was tabled and
specifically requested that these amendments be tabled and passed. That is why I hope, at the end of the
day, members of the House will see that these particular amendments are apolitical, but are intended to
protect animals within our country and that they are reasonable and balanced.
When the bill is studied in committee, I am sure committee members will be interested to hear what
those groups have to say. I am also certain that the groups involved will reiterate their positions and the
points I made here.
It is true that the coalition does not include hunting and fishing organizations, and that the anglers and
hunters continue to express concerns. As a matter of logic, we could ask how it could be that animal
researchers, agriculturalists, trappers and veterinarians all feel adequately comfortable that these
amendments manage to strike a balance that enables the normal use of animals for food and other needs
while on the other hand ensuring that we have legislative capabilities to arrest, prosecute and have the
full force of the law applied to those individuals who commit heinous acts against innocent animals?
The simple matter is that hunters, animal researchers, veterinarians, farmers and trappers alike do not
need to invoke any defence to justify their activities, but let us be clear about what the law actually
prohibits. It only prohibits the wilful, reckless or criminally negligent affliction of pain that is known to
be avoidable and unnecessary. In the case of the new offence, the law prohibits the intentional killing of
an animal with brutal or vicious intent.
Let us think about that for a moment. If a person were to knowingly cause more pain to an animal
than is necessary, if a person were to fall significantly below the reasonable standard of care, and if a
person were to brutally or viciously intend to kill an animal, how could we not say that this person is
engaged in wrongdoing?
I want to emphasize that we are excluding from this the normal activities of hunting, trapping, fishing,
research, and the production of food products that are a normal aspect of civilized society.
These acts, though, must be punished. The reason why we are bringing the bill forward is that we
cannot have a loophole in the legislation. We need to enable the courts to prosecute adequately those
individuals who do commit acts of wanton violence and torture against animals. There are no excuses
for that kind of behaviour.
The reality is that the vast majority of all industry participants take great care and cause no more pain
than is required to meet their objectives. When the killing of an animal is required, the intention of such
a person is one of respect toward that animal and the humanity expressed by that person. They kill the
animal with a method known to be effective, quick and relatively painless.
If this is the case, there is no cruelty and therefore there is no crime. The humane use and killing of
animals is not a crime, but simply a fact of life since the beginning of time. The Menard case, the
leading case on cruelty to animals, makes perfectly clear that in an industry setting, causing only
necessary pain is not a crime.
Let me say a few words, if I may, about concerns that have been expressed about the offence of
brutality or viciousness in the killing of an animal. It has been said that the phrase “regardless of
whether the animal died instantly” must be removed because it precludes the person who caused
immediate death as some kind of offence and could be charged.
Let me conclude by saying that I think in principle, most members, if they read the legislation, can see
that we have tried to strike a balance. The objectivity of it can be found in the fact that groups that are
involved in the use of animals and animal products, and in the killing of animals, support the bill. They
recognize that on one hand we have to have the legislative capabilities to address and prosecute those
who torture and kill animals needlessly and on the other hand protect those who kill animals under law
abiding activities in this country, including hunting, fishing, trapping and research.
�� (1710)
Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): Madam Speaker, I listened
carefully to the hon. member's presentation. Members in my party are supportive of this bill. However,
we think there are a couple of important amendments that need to be added to the bill.
I heard a reference to hunting and fishing organizations that may not be supportive of the bill. Why
are they not supporting the bill when so many other organizations are? I had the opportunity to meet
with members of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters last week. They have some concerns
with the bill. I would not say that the federation embraces the bill. I think it would be fair to say that the
federation is prepared to live with the bill if there were a couple of important amendments.
There is a concern as to what happens when Parliament passes a law. Members of Parliament state
that this is what we are trying to do and this is the balance we are trying to strike. The reality is that at
the end of the day it is the courts that will decide in terms of what is or is not prohibited by that act.
It is widely known that animal rights activists have stated quite categorically that it is their intention
to push for amendments as far as they are possibly able to do so. That is actually the root of the
discomfort for many people with this bill.
What comfort would the parliamentary secretary offer to an organization such as the OFAH in terms
of the courts not interpreting this in a way that he does not intend and that does actually infringe on
activities that are considered very mainstream?
Hon. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks a very good question that comes to the
root of the challenge that we had in the construction of this particular bill.
I believe I can give the hon. member the assurance he seeks. I completely agree with the concern that
the member has. Groups such as various antivivisectionist groups would like to basically prohibit all
types of animal research. They will try to push this issue as far as they can and the member is correct.
We have made sure that this is not the case in this bill. We constructed this bill very clearly to prevent
exactly the concern he mentioned, which is also our concern.
If I may give the member some level of comfort, which I think is what all of us have to have, the
approval of research based groups which are at the sharp edge of the antivivisectionist movement in the
world approve of this bill. They feel comfortable with this bill, that it will not be utilized and applied by
the courts in such a manner that it will affect their ability to engage in the research that they do for the
betterment of not only humans but in the veterinary sciences as well.
We have these other groups that are at the sharp edge of antivivisectionist groups that would like to
do exactly what the member mentioned. However, they approve of it. I think that if any groups were to
feel uncomfortable at all about any part of this bill, it would be those groups that are involved in the
research and those types of activities that are most of concern to the hon. member.
We brought those groups on board. We have given them the opportunity to look very carefully at the
amendments. Those amendments have passed mustard with them. As a result, we feel very confident
that this particular bill will not be used in the courts by antivivisectionists, as the hon. member
mentioned.
�� (1715)
Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC): Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak
to Bill C-50, the animal cruelty bill.
Like others before it that attempted to legislate against animal cruelty, this bill as presented is flawed.
It is flawed in such a way that it could attempt to make criminals out of law-abiding citizens in my
riding of Leeds--Grenville. It will do this in a similar fashion as the long gun registry, and in fact it will
target many of the same people as the long gun registry, the hunters, the fishers, the farmers, as they
conduct their normal day to day affairs.
We need to ensure that the people who live in the city and who only go to the country to view the
scenery stop writing bills that affect the hard-working rural residents of Canada.
Bills such as Bill C-50 are spawning local political action groups such as the landowners associations
and the Rural Revolution. Bills such as this are frustrating rural residents and pitting them against
politicians and those who enforce such poorly written legislation. Bills such as this are further damaging
the fragile rural economy in Canada, and in particular my riding of Leeds--Grenville.
Not only are the residents in danger of being charged under this particular bill, but visitors to my
riding could also be targeted. The economy in my riding relies heavily on visitors. They come from the
cities. They come from the United States. They come from Europe and from the Pacific Rim. They come
to enjoy the outdoors.
Leeds--Grenville prides itself on being an outdoor recreational playground boasting some of the finest
fishing and hunting in the world. The giant muskie found in the waters of the St. Lawrence is celebrated
both on and off the river with several communities boasting local tally boards for those anglers skilled
enough to catch one.
Recently in Leeds--Grenville, many residents and visitors were on the water in their small boats and
homemade blinds stocking up on their yearly supply of ducks and geese. This probably sounds cruel to
city folk with idealistic dreams about the food chain, but it is a necessary part of many people's lives in
Leeds and Grenville. We do not need to spend too long carefully walking the shores of the St. Lawrence
to recognize that there are a lot of geese in the area and a little hunting is not going to hurt the
population.
Currently, folks are involved in another annual event, the deer hunt. Here is another creature that is in
plentiful supply. Without some of its natural predators readily available, the deer population explodes
and hunting has become part of that cull process. In fact, we have seen many accidents throughout
eastern Ontario because of the exploding deer population. The deer hunt is also the traditional way in
which many people supplement their food supplies for the winter. The deer hunt is so revered in the
riding that many folks do not actually plan events during the time of the deer hunt.
All this is to say that hunting and fishing are as much a part of the rural lifestyle in Leeds and
Grenville and throughout Canada as riding a bus is natural to the lifestyle of city dwellers. Residents in
my riding object to portions of Bill C-50, which for the first time in Canadian history make it an offence
to kill an animal brutally or viciously without defining the terms “brutally” and “viciously”.
The bill also does not exempt from this offence the killing of animals in the normal and lawful
conduct of commercial fishing and hunting. Residents in Leeds and Grenville request that this specific
section of the bill be revised to provide an explicit exemption for the killing of animals in the course of
hunting and fishing.
Traditional animal use industries and recreational fishing and hunting should be exempted from
prosecution under this legislation. I would look to the time when we did have the support of our hunting
and fishing organizations in order to get this bill through the House. My research shows that many
jurisdictions that have animal cruelty legislation provide such exemptions. Without such an exemption, I
and residents of Leeds and Grenville are convinced that certain animal rights groups will bring forward
criminal complaints under the legislation against fishing and hunting enterprises and the thousands of
sports people in my riding.
These organizations have already declared their intent to use the revised legislation to challenge
traditional animal use industries and recreational fishing and hunting. Justice officials from the
government advise that if such changes are brought forward, there are sufficient offences to get the
charges dismissed. I would advise the justice minister that this is not sufficient.
�� (1720)
The point is not whether residents of Leeds--Grenville can pay for a lawyer and beat the charges at
great expense to themselves and the court system. The point is hunting and fishing enterprises are
already licensed by various levels of government to conduct their work. Hunters and fishers are also
licensed and must abide by laws. They should not have to get out of bed in the morning wondering if
some other citizen with a larger cash reserve is going to take them to court that day and they will have to
defend themselves against frivolous charges.
I understand the intent of the legislation is to increase the penalties for animal cruelty offences and to
simplify, modernize and fill the gaps in the offence structure of the animal cruelty regime. I am as much
opposed as anyone else to animal cruelty. In fact, I am sure anyone in the House and most Canadians
would be opposed to any cruelty to animals. It is absolutely shameful and appalling how some people
mistreat animals and they must be held accountable. That is what we should be striving for in the bill,
not turning our hunters and fishers into criminals.
Without the requested exemptions in Bill C-50, there is considerable legal opinion that the proposed
legislation amounts to significant changes to the law which are detrimental to animal use industries,
fishers and hunters. On behalf of the residents of Leeds--Grenville, I request that these changes be made
before the bill is permitted to proceed any further. With these exemptions included in the bill, I would be
happy to stand in my place and support a bill that fights against animal cruelty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's frankness on
his position on this bill. I think members in the House would agree there is no appetite and no tolerance
whatsoever for what we all understand generically as cruelty to animals. An animal is defined as a
vertebrate except a human being for the purposes of the bill.
The member raised an interesting question about the definitions of “vicious” and “brutal”. Could the
member contemplate a scenario where a hunter who has hunted for many years and has a licence could
possibly hunt an animal in a way which he would consider to be brutal or vicious? Sometimes if people
are drinking or angry or whatever, they might just happen to do something that might be brutal or
vicious. It would be difficult to define it, but the facts of each case would have to be on their own merit.
I could imagine there could be a case where maybe the animal was wounded or otherwise mutilated, but
it was not killed. It could happen.
Is there a way in which we could deal with his concern about viciousness and brutality in a way that
he would still want to protect animals?
�� (1725)
Mr. Gord Brown: Madam Speaker, the member's question is the very thing that hunting and fishing
organizations fear, because it is not clearly defined. I would like the bill sent to committee where we
could hear from witnesses and get the answers so we could change the bill so it would no longer be
flawed.
The member has raised some good points. The bill plays very much to the fear of being cruel to
animals. That needs to be clearly defined. That is the problem with the bill. The sooner we resolve that, I
think we would find unanimity among parliamentarians to protect against cruelty to animals.
Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I understand the member's concern for the hunting and
fishing communities and those who enjoy our wildlife and the sport that wildlife provide. I use the term
“sport” because obviously those who are truly sporting are people who treat animals in a humane way.
There may be exceptions to the rule, but clearly this bill is trying to approach those who would in fact
take advantage of a situation, as was suggested by my colleague, and would maim animals. That is
simply inappropriate.
A question has been raised in the House concerning this bill on which I would like the hon. member's
opinion. If someone does something that is considered to be brutal or vicious in the way in which the
person kills an animal but the animal dies instantly, does the member think there should be a variation in
the way in which that person is treated in relation to that particular situation? An example would be if
someone tied a dog to a railroad track and a train came along and killed it instantly. Would he look at it
differently if the dog was only maimed by the train and ultimately died later?
Mr. Gord Brown: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question does not have anything to do with
what we are talking about.
Right now, fishing and hunting organizations are concerned about the potential for prosecution under
this bill. Animal rights groups have said that they will look to this bill, once passed, to cause
prosecutions against fishermen and hunters. We need a reasonable debate to discuss this.
As I said before, there is clear unanimity among parliamentarians to put an end to cruelty to animals,
but we have to address this before we allow this to tie up our courts for years and cause all kinds of
damage to the economy.
I would be happy to take serious questions from members.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to provide some input as
a city person. The last speaker somehow assumes that I do not know very much about animals.
However, I am proud to say that a couple years ago I started an outdoor caucus for the Liberal caucus
in conjunction with Ontario anglers and hunters. It was an excellent group. I believe there were over 52
members, all who are sport enthusiasts, fishers or hunters of various sorts.
Sporting is an important element of Canadian culture, such as sport shooting and fishing. It is not
restricted to the non-urban centres of Canada.
I understand the member is in an area where this is of particular concern. I appreciate he is here
representing the issues of his riding. It is interesting that his party has supported the bill twice already,
but the member still has a responsibility to make a reasoned argument, and I believe he has done the best
that he can.
Of the people who have written to me, I have received input on both sides, but more on the side of
why a bill, which is trying to deal with the problem of cruelty to animals, cannot get passed in this place
within a reasonable period of time, if we think in the macro context.
The previous speaker has raised one of the questions that perhaps some definitions are unclear and
that people who are very much interested in the rules of the game with regard to their activities in terms
of sport hunting and fishing are a little concerned that there may be too much latitude and too much
breadth in the proposed legislation.
The member will know that there are provisions under the Criminal Code, some of which go back
into the 1800s. I think amendments have been made as recently as in the 1950s. However, the important
point is there are provisions relating to cruelty to animals such that all of the common law defence is
available to those who would be charged of an alleged offence. Therefore, all the tools of any offence
under the Criminal Code are available. That is important for the member to know.
The other aspect has to do with the whole question of do we have to define brutality and viciousness.
Some members have said that hunters and fishers would never do anything to be cruel to an animal. That
would certainly be our wish, but we are talking about human beings. From time to time, there are some
fairly horrific circumstances. I am not sure if I had to sit down with the member, whether I could come
up with what would constitute viciousness or brutality.
Conceptually it puts us in the ballpark and every circumstance must rest on its own merit. Every one
will be different. I am not sure whether we as legislators can somehow put a black and white definition
within legislation which would then possibly exclude some aspects.
Members have a right to suggest that if we allow too much latitude to the courts, that latitude may be
so broad that it may have unintended consequences. People who never had any thought whatsoever of
being cruel to an animal may find themselves in front of the courts. That is problematic. We know the
courts are not perfect. We know lawyers are not perfect.
�� (1730)
However, we have to rely on the fact that our country is based on the rule of law and the protection of
the rights and the freedoms of individuals. If we are not going to respect the courts, if we do not feel that
we have the tools, then that raises a whole other problem. It has to do with the confidence in the courts.
That is an important question that maybe has not been fully debated yet. I know we have often run nose
to nose with not only Supreme Court decisions, but also appeal court decisions and a few others, which
create a domino effect and get us into some of these difficulties.
If legislators are starting to believe that, imagine what the public feels. It sees anecdotally some
stories about this or that and what happened to that poor person. Not all parliamentarians can serve on
the justice committee, hear all the witnesses and deal with all these issues at committee. We therefore
second it to our colleagues on that committee to do the work and to ask the right questions. I know all
the members on the committee and I am very confident that those members will explore these concerns.
When we go through first and second reading, that is where the concerns should come out. That is
when members who are not on the committee or are unsure whether report stage motions will be a place
where they have an opportunity to make amendments if they feel there are some, should put those issues
on the table, issues that are vitally important to their constituents or to themselves based on their
reading, but without having had the benefit the briefings and hearing the witnesses and examination by
the members.
It is very easy in this place to talk for or against almost any bill. We can if we make a premise. In this
case there are certainly many opportunities to have a premise. Fundamentally, when we talk about
cruelty to animals, I think Canadians, regardless of whether they are urban or rural or anything in
between, understand that if there is unnecessary pain, if there is something other than what was
intended, we need to have a law that covers that. If we look at the United States for instance, its animal
cruelty legislation is enacted in each of the individual states.
For example, New York State's agriculture and markets law, chapter 69 of the consolidated law,
section 332 to 379 states that an animal includes “every living being except the human being”. That is
even broader than we have in the bill. In Bill C-50 an animal is defined as “a vertebrate, other than a
human being”. As a member said to me, this takes worms off the hook.
Canada needs to have a law on cruelty to animals. We have had many iterations. We have gone
through this for a number of years. There is a great sensitivity to the arguments that have been raised by
the anglers and hunters. I want to be absolutely sure that when we ultimately get legislation, and I hope
we will, that all parties and stakeholders across the country, including the public at large who are not
involved in these kinds of activities, will understand that it is in the best interests of all. It is part of our
culture and value system. There has been a significant need to finally bring this into being.
We have to rely on those who are familiar with the law to judge each and every circumstance on its
own merit. It would be extremely difficult to define what constitutes brutality and viciousness other than
in general terms. However, we know, if we are to respect the law and make laws that will be respected,
we have to make every effort to deal with those divergences in terms of the concerns. No matter how we
produce these laws, there needs to be some flexibility within the legislation because every case has
something a bit different. The laws of Canada are made that way. They have served us well, and the time
has come for Bill C-50.
�� (1735)
[Translation]
Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): Madam Speaker, we are not necessarily opposed to
this bill. We are not opposed to a policy aimed at providing animals with more protection against
cruelty. We do, however, find that the legitimate activities set out in the bill, such as hunting and fishing,
and other activities involving the killing of animals, are not clearly delineated.
Here is my question for my colleague. Given that the bill has been introduced in the House on
numerous occasions—we have had C-10 and C-22—would there be some way of reworking it to
provide a more detailed definition of what constitutes cruelty toward animals and what constitutes a
legitimate activity? This bill is not sufficiently clear on that. A major effort would have to be made on
this, to ensure that the bill includes protection for farmers, hunters and others at risk of being charged
with an act that would not necessarily constitute animal cruelty. That is my question for my colleague.
�� (1740)
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, the member's question is quite important. It gives me an
opportunity again to simply say that not all members are on the justice committee. When this bill is dealt
with at second reading, we have our vote. I think it has the support of all parties that it would go to
committee. The intervention of the member will be on the public record. It is available to committee
members. The concerns he has raised either in his speech or in his questions are available for our
colleagues on the justice committee to ensure that we have the proper witnesses so we can deal with
those sensitivities. A previous speaker was concerned about the lack of clarity and definitions or no
definitions at all. If those are possible, we should know that. It is extremely important.
This is second reading. This is where I expect to hear, as a parliamentarian, whether there is some
consensus in this place. At second reading, if on first blush people look at it and say that they have heard
from enough people, that it causes them concern and that they want the justice committee, as part of its
review of the legislation at committee stage, to address those specific questions, then we have to ensure
the witnesses are there to deal with those questions. Then when it comes back to this place, the questions
of all hon. members will have been addressed in some fashion to bring them to some conclusion, or at
least a reason why they have not been addressed. That will give us a better basis on which we can
determine whether we care, as individual members not on the committee, to propose report stage
motions. That is available to us have if we have not otherwise had an opportunity to influence
committee stage amendments. In these matters members have the opportunity to use their best judgment
in exercising their votes. This is an important part of the process.
Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like the
opinion of my hon. colleague. I think there is a reason why we have never seen this bill pass over the
course of the last number of years. It seems to me there would have to be so many exclusions and
exceptions to the bill that we may never get it passed. As the member knows, we live in a very litigious
society. I think a lot of people would be somewhat fearful or very fearful of the fact that if the bill is not
narrow cast sufficiently, one might be open for legal action. There are many examples. From the
agricultural perspective, what would happen if we brand cattle, as an example? What would happen if
we kill gophers?
I do not know whether the bill will ever see the light of day. As other members have stated, and I
believe we have unanimity, we do not want to see cruelty to animals in the common sense, family pets,
for example. No one wants to see a dog, or a cat, or a budgie or anything else cruelly tortured and
abused.
I do not know if we can ever get to a point where we narrow cast the legislation sufficiently to allow
passage in this place. Would my hon. colleague care to comment on that?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I have to be honest with the member. He is incorrect in his
assertions. This bill passed in Parliament twice. The only difference in the bill presently before us and
the bills that passed in this place twice before were the non-derogation provisions for aboriginal fishing
and hunting rights. That is the only difference. The member is incorrect. The House did pass them, but
there was a combination of timing and circumstances.
Let me suggest to the member that this is the kind of bill for which we should say, “Do not tell me
why we cannot. We have to work together so that we know how we can”.
�� (1745)
Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC): Madam Speaker, I always wonder why, when
we seem to be thinking about an election, this bill comes before us for debate. It dies on the order paper
and then in the next Parliament it comes back but is not a priority of the government anymore. Then,
when an election is in the offing, suddenly it is an important thing, we debate it and it dies again.
I think this is about the third or fourth Parliament in which we have been debating this particular bill.
Here we are, perhaps in an end game, debating it once more. Everybody is saying we should do this.
Why do we not just do this and get it over with? Because everybody agrees that being cruel and
inhumane to animals cannot be tolerated in this society, so let us do it.
Let us do it. But then, when we take a look at what the government proposes, we say, “Wait a minute,
this is not what we had in mind”. Of course, the government is pandering to the special interest groups
that want anything and everything and would live in a vegetarian society. The government wants all
their votes so it writes the bill in such a way that anybody killing any animal would seem to be
committing an offence. Then government goes off to fight the election saying it understands what those
groups are saying and is supporting them all the way, but the bill did not quite get passed.
I predict that we will be debating this in the next Parliament. Hopefully we will be over there and the
Liberals will be over here, but if, in the most unfortunate result ever, they are over there again, we will
go through this again. They will bring it back. It will not be a priority for years and years and then who
knows?
First, I would like to read for members a quote to substantiate my argument that the government
wants to pander to these groups that believe that nothing should be killed. I will quote the director of the
Animal Alliance of Canada, one of Canada's major animal rights organizations, who stated:
My hon. friend was just talking a few minutes ago about respecting the courts and letting the courts
make the judgment, but how can we expect the courts to do what we want when we send these
ambiguous messages to them? Then they try to figure it out, they do something we do not like, and we
say, “But shucks, this is not the way the democracy is supposed to work”.
The bill hinges around one clause, which I would like to quote in part:
I contend that it is very hard to kill an animal so that it dies immediately without being kind of brutal
or vicious about the whole affair. We do not tickle them to death. We shoot them, electrocute them and
other things. We want them to die instantly. That is a pretty brutal process. Pardon me, and I am sorry
for the people listening who have weak stomachs, but we cut chickens' throats and they bleed to death.
That is deemed to be humane, but according to this bill that could be construed to be vicious and brutal
and therefore we would be committing an offence.
This is what I mean about the ambiguity of this bill, which allows everybody to say “yes, I think it is
protected”, but the poor farmers and everybody else would be at the mercy of people who take a
different point of view. That is a very serious issue. Farmers are concerned.
The livestock slaughterhouses ought to be concerned because thousands of times a day they are
“brutally“ and “wilfully” killing animals. We have always said that is humane, but according to this act
it would be open to interpretation and we would end up sending it off to the courts to see what they say.
Why do we not do the job right here and do it properly right here? That is what we are supposed to do.
�� (1750)
We write the legislation. We are supposed to give clear direction to the courts, such as the following:
“This is what we consider to be inhumane. This is what we consider to be vicious and brutal. Therefore,
apply the law”. That is we are supposed to do rather than have these kinds of catch-all phrases so that
everybody can feel good, with the poor farmer left at their mercy. The farmer is just feeding Canadians.
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.
Every one commits an offence who, wilfully...
(b) kills an animal...brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately;....
We also talked about hunters. Hunting is a sport not only in western Canada; thousands of people go
out into the wilderness and hunt deer, moose and elk and so on. What happens if a hunter tries to shoot
one dead instantly and does not quite make it? The animal goes off, bleeding profusely, is not found for
an hour or so and dies in the meantime. Is that hunter guilty of an offence? It would appear so, according
to this bill. There is no exemption for that.
What about those people who are out there with a fishing rod, catch a fish with a hook around the
mouth and drag it in using a gaff? We have the same thing. There is no protection, no protection at all.
But there is protection for our first nations. There always seems to be a protection for them,
unfortunately, because they are allowed to do whatever they want to do if it is given to them according
to the treaties and so on that they have under what is now part of our Constitution. If that treaty allows
them to be inhumane, then this act allows them to continue to be inhumane. They get the special
exemption. We have to ask ourselves why. Why them and not us?
Today's Globe and Mail tells us that thousands of chickens in British Columbia were slaughtered
because one had avian flu. We say that was the right thing to do. The rest of those chickens were not
sick, but they were all viciously slaughtered in the name of protecting our health. According to this bill,
that could be construed as being a vicious and wilful slaughter of animals.
We have all watched the debate about fox hunting in the United Kingdom, where the poor fox is
chased through the countryside by people on horses until it is run into the ground and viciously pulled
apart by the dogs. That is inhumane. That should not be allowed. I am glad that the United Kingdom has
finally got its act together. I am glad we do not do that here in Canada. That should never be allowed.
This bill must be amended to clearly state what is legitimate, what is lawful, what is a part of our
society, and what this society abhors. There is no distinction in this bill. Therefore, the bill needs to be
amended. I do not see why the bill should go forward.
Of course, the Liberals will go out during the election and say, “We tried once more. Guess what?
Other people were holding it up”. I do not see people holding it up. We are only asking for reason for
farmers, fishermen and sporting people, who are lawfully doing what many Canadians do every day. We
go to the store and we buy the meat. We buy the chicken and we buy the fish and that is part of the way
we live. We say it is done humanely, but I say that killing animals is a brutal process. Anyone who has
ever been to a slaughterhouse will know that it is not a pretty sight, but that is the way our society lives.
Let us respect these people who make their living that way, the people who feed society, who feed us,
who feed Canadians and who feed the rest of the world.
I would hope that this government is serious about protecting animals. I hope the government is
serious about outlawing inhumane behaviour, rather than every time just before an election deciding to
have a little debate to say it is trying to do something and then blaming Parliament because the
government really does not want to do anything. Unfortunately, that is becoming patently clear.
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened with interest
to the speech by the hon. member. Basically he was saying that this bill is designed to pander to what he
referred to as special interest groups.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Hon. Don Boudria: Given that, then, which the member seems to be confirming, the member will
know that this bill is a 2003 bill, plus two amendments asked for by the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture, following which the Canadian Federation of Agriculture issued a press release. It states,
about the two amendments that were added, or in other words, the bill that is there now, “...Canadian
farmers are 100 per cent behind these two amendments they have made”.
Does the member consider the Canadian Federation of Agriculture one of those special interest groups
that he was talking about a minute ago?
�� (1755)
Mr. John Williams: Madam Speaker, that is not a special interest group. It is the interest group that
we are trying to protect by ensuring that it does not end up in court as its members continue their
legitimate business.
The issue I was trying to point out in my speech was that the Liberals pander to the special interest
groups that would have us eat tofu and vegetarian food for the rest of our lives. I do not think Canadians
are into that, but the Liberals want to be able to go off and fight the election saying that they stood up
and protected everything that those groups believe in, while at the same time telling the farmers and the
fishermen not to worry, that they will look after them. They will be telling the softwood lumber
producers not to worry, that they will look after them--perhaps--and so on and so forth. They want to be
all things to all people
Let us be clear. The food industry in Canada contains a very substantial portion of animal foods:
livestock, chicken, fish, and so on. People who go to a slaughterhouse will find that the animals are all
killed brutally although instantaneously. This bill gives them no protection whatsoever. I cannot
understand why the government cannot segregate the two.
Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak
in support of Bill C-50, an act to amend the Criminal Code in respect of cruelty to animals.
[Translation]
As we have heard, a number of members on the other side of the House oppose the bill currently
before it. We have just heard a member say that only specific interest groups, such as vegetarians and
others he mentioned supported the bill—I have nothing against vegetarians, although I am not one
myself—however, it is quite wrong to say that such is the case.
In 2003, the House passed the bill in question, which was sent to the Senate. It then proposed
amendments, which the House considered and adopted. The bill could not be passed for lack of time.
I repeat what I said earlier. Some of these amendments were supported by the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture. It is not an interest group that deserves to be described as marginal or the like.
I heard the member for Leeds—Grenville claim that we in Canada passed laws that were not found
anywhere else. People from outside Canada visiting his riding come from the state of New York, a few
kilometres from where he is from, and the laws are that much stricter there.
I am not a believer in there being no laws at all. Of course, there should be a law, in criminal law, to
prevent cruelty to animals while protecting the people of Canada, those who hunt and fish and pursue
other similar activities. There is no need to say agriculture and the slaughter practices need to be
protected—it goes without saying. These areas are clearly not covered by this bill. The proof of this is
that national groups representing farmers have already confirmed it.
[English]
I will give another quote, “This amended legislation”, that is the bill as it is with the two amendments
from before, “is technically sound and is as strong as ever”. With that, the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture encouraged Parliament to pass the legislation.
As I said a while ago, the legislation then died on the order paper in the other place where there
continued to be attention paid to two other amendments which were not requested or supported by
industry groups or by the House. That is where we were in 2003.
Let us fast forward a little. In November 2004, several months after the opening of this Parliament,
the Minister of Justice received a letter from a large coalition of industry groups that explicitly requested
a retabling, which is not really the right word, but the reintroduction of a new bill on the issue of cruelty
to animals with the amendments that I described, and those amendments are in the bill.
I will get back to the comments by the member for Prince Albert and the member for Leeds--
Grenville. I will read into the record the names of these groups: the British Columbia Cattlemen's
Association, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Dairy Farmers of Canada, the Manitoba Cattle
Producers Association, the Ontario Farm Animal Council and the Dairy Farmers of Canada. They must
know a little about animals. How about the Ontario Egg Producers? Some people were mentioning
chicken a while ago. Those are the groups of people who are supporting this. Those are the people who
asked us to go ahead with this bill.
I can go on. Some people will want to ask about hunting and about the raising of animals for fur. I am
glad they asked. We have the Canada Mink Breeders Association, the Fur Institute of Canada and the
Fur Council of Canada. People may then ask whether those using animals for research are against the
bill. No. The Canadian Animal Health Institute, the Canadian Association of Laboratory Animal
Sciences, the Canadians for Health Research and Canada's Research Base Pharmaceutical Companies
are all in favour of the bill.
I say to the Conservatives across the way that it is high time they start to get with it. This is not an
urban issue versus rural. It is nothing like that.
Mr. James Lunney: It's sloppy legislation, Don.
Hon. Don Boudria: It is not sloppy legislation. If the hon. member across says that it is sloppy
legislation, then he had better go to all these groups, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture,
and tell them that all of them are wrong, if that is what he thinks. The hon. member across is entitled to
say that all of the agricultural groups are wrong and maybe he can go tell them that they are wrong.
I understand tomorrow will be a big lobby day on the Hill for some of the agricultural industries,
particularly in supply management. The reason I know this is that I am sponsoring the event, which will
be a large social event. Perhaps the member could tell them how they are all wrong in supporting this
bill. They will be pleased to know how the hon. member thinks he is so much smarter than all of them.
They might have a different opinion of the hon. member after he has told them that but he is perfectly
entitled to do so.
I will be at the lobby event tomorrow shaking hands with the hon. member when he enters the room
to explain all this to my constituents, agricultural constituents and all the others across Canada who
support the bill.
Just in case the hon. member and others did not get it, I will repeat what I said. The industry
organizations wrote, as in paper, to the Minister of Justice before this legislation was introduced and
requested it. All these agricultural organizations and everyone else who asked for the bill, who the hon.
member says are wrong, wrote and requested this. With no disrespect, these people know a little bit
more about agriculture than some of us and they are in favour of the bill.
�� (1800)
These same groups wrote again to the minister in February 2005, three months before Bill C-50 was
introduced, and again requested its introduction. I just happen to have the text of that letter here and it
says, “We once again ask you to move forward with the reintroduction of Bill C-22”. Bill C-22 was the
original bill as I indicated a while ago. People in the agricultural sector asked, not only once for the bill
but they wrote a second letter asking for it again.
The moral of this story is that no matter whether one lives in urban Canada or rural Canada the issues
are not that different. There will be people on the margins here and there, on the extreme side one way
or the other, but no one can tell me that my constituents who work in agriculture are less conscious of
proper animal husbandry and less conscious of issues involving cruelty to animals than people living in
the urban parts of my constituency who may never have been inside a slaughter house or anything close
to it. One might know more about how it is done than the other, and as someone who was raised on a
farm I believe that, but that does not mean that one group is less concerned about animal welfare than
the other.
When it is time for a cow to give birth, how many of us know that a farmer will be up all night
attending to it? They take a lot of care in feeding their animals. Sometimes they are more careful with
feeding their animals than they are with their own diet, but that is another matter.
All of that is to say that this is good legislation for either rural or urban Canada and it is supported by
rural Canada.
�� (1805)
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC): Madam Speaker, I come from an area that is a
mixture of both urban and rural communities. I have had animals most of my life. I have a small hobby
farm in a rural community on Vancouver Island with hobby farms on all sides of me. People are
concerned about animal cruelty. We have had some nasty incidents of people neglecting animals or
doing horrendous things to them. People want our existing laws enforced or at least toughened up.
I do not believe it is true when the member says that all the groups requesting this legislation
understand the objection our party is putting forward and which he is overlooking. It was very clearly
brought forward by the member from St. Albert who said that it was the very sloppy and loose clauses
that say that one is guilty of an offence if one kills an animal brutally or viciously regardless of whether
it dies quickly. Clauses like that without exemptions for slaughter houses, for hunters and for fishermen
will be tested in the courts. I am sure there are members opposite who would like their friends in the
courts, the judges and the lawyers to have lots of work testing these cases and prosecuting duck hunters
and fishermen. I am sure it hurts a fish to have a hook in its lip. It is not nice but people do fish and we
eat those fish.
Our objection with this legislation is the hidden language. It is the clauses that most people have not
read. Members opposite know full well that those clauses were put in the bill to make lots of work for
lawyers and the courts and to give room to people with another agenda to persecute these people and try
to condemn practices that have been around for a long time. We do eat fish and animals whether the
member opposite likes it or not.
From our point of view, it is not fair to obstruct good legislation with clauses that will be misused and
thereby create all kinds of legal tangles, when it could be simplified very easily by making it very clear
that there are exemptions for those who have legitimate animal practices for human food consumption.
�� (1810)
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, it is a little hard to follow what is going on across the way this
afternoon. The first speaker on the opposition side said that he was in favour of the bill and wanted it to
go to committee to see if the bill could be improved.
The second speaker said that he was against everything in the bill because, in his view, with his riding
being close to the United States and so on, it would harm what he called the hunting and so on. Clearly,
the bill does not do anything like that.
Then the member from St. Albert said that the only people supporting it were the special interest
groups. We read, of course, that the special interest groups he referred to were all the agricultural
organizations across Canada. Then of course he had to backtrack a little bit and redefine what he had
said.
Now the hon. member is saying that we are adopting the bill because it pleases our friends who are
judges and lawyers, or words to that effect.
Maybe they should have read the bill first and gave the speeches later, instead of the other way round.
Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC): Madam Speaker, I have to say that I am thoroughly
disappointed with the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. I have always had a lot of respect
for him but for him to distort this in such a fashion as to say that potentially the people from New York
state cannot go fishing and hunting is absolute nonsense. For him to say that because the people from the
Federation of Agriculture support the bill means that we are against the Federation of Agriculture is a
bunch of nonsense. Canadians expect better from their parliamentarians in terms of what they hear in
this place.
First, does the member think that fishing and hunting is illegal in New York state? Second, is it too
much to ask that we hear from the fishing and hunting organizations and to satisfy them before this goes
through and we turn law-abiding citizens into criminals? Is it too much to ask?
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, on the second point, I do think the two groups the hon. member
mentioned would make excellent witnesses to contribute toward debate. That is certainly a good idea.
As the hon. member will know, over the last many years Parliament has increased the number of
witnesses that it has before parliamentary committees all the time. It is almost unheard of now,
legislating without the benefit of witnesses appearing before committee, and certainly witnesses of the
kind that he enumerated are perfect witnesses to bring before the committee. There is nothing wrong
with that idea. As a matter of fact I do think we would be remiss if we did not have people representing,
for instance, organizations like Ducks Unlimited. He could use the name of a different organization if he
thinks another one is better. It does not matter. Groups such as that, of course, would be perfect to testify
before the committee.
As to whether or not fishing is permitted in New York state, obviously it is. The point I was making
was not that it was illegal in New York state. I referred to the fact that the animal cruelty laws in New
York state are stricter than the ones we are implementing in the bill.
Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): Madam Speaker, I recognize
that the name of my riding is long and in fact I have a big piece of Peterborough County in my riding, so
it probably should be called Haliburton--Kawartha Lakes--Brock--Peterborough, but we will leave that
for another time.
I enjoyed the presentation of my colleague from Glengarry--Prescott--Russell. I do not always agree
with everything he says but it is fun for me as a rookie member to watch a veteran strut his stuff. I do
not know whether I just witnessed a swan song or not. I watched a NASCAR race yesterday. Rusty
Wallace was retiring after many years and it was fun to sit there and watch him take his last lap. I do not
know whether we have seen that today as well.
Hon. Don Boudria: I hope I do not crash.
Mr. Barry Devolin: Madam Speaker, I hope the member does not crash either. I look forward to as
long and illustrious career as he has had.
In terms of Bill C-50, I think all Canadians would agree that we would oppose cruelty to animals.
That is not the issue here. I am not a lawyer, and I say that as often as I am given the opportunity, but I
have been told by lawyers that one of the problems in prosecuting these cases is often the challenge of
actually getting sufficient evidence to get a conviction. It is not so much that there are not laws on the
books and quite frankly, it is not even so much that this bill would necessarily change the laws so much.
The problem is gathering sufficient evidence. I suspect that is a problem that this bill, whether it passes
or does not pass, is not really going to change.
In my riding there is a non-partisan farm council which I speak to regularly. Its members inform me
about agricultural issues and advise me on different things. One of the members of the farm council runs
a fox farm where foxes are raised and sold for their fur. They have concerns with this bill that something
such as tattooing numbers on an animal's ear may be challenged at some point in the courts. Their
concerns are valid in terms of their fear about what this bill will actually mean once it goes through the
courts, as opposed to being concerned about what the intent is of parliamentarians.
They are concerned because animal rights activists in the country, who I believe represent a very
extreme view, do not represent the mainstream and would like to see all practices that involve animals
ended. They have said quite boldly and defiantly that if this bill passes, they will work hard to push this
new legislation to its limits in the courts. They will test it. They will prod and probe to see exactly how
far they can push it. I suspect they will keep their eyes on which area they are in and who the judges are.
That is not to insult judges but just to recognize that they may know that some judges may be more or
less sympathetic to their views and that that may establish case law.
Several years from now we may be standing in this House talking about how we all thought Bill C-50
was a good idea because of what we intended, but unfortunately the real world result of it was different.
At the end of the day it will be the courts that will interpret the bill. What the courts decide will be what
actually happens on the ground.
I mentioned earlier in a question to another member that only last week I met with representatives
from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. I come from a rural riding in central Ontario. There
are many people in my community who enjoy hunting and fishing as a recreational activity. Quite
frankly many of them use the spoils from that activity as a way of augmenting their food supply over the
course of a year.
I listened carefully to the representatives from the OFAH and they made a couple of points. Their first
point was that if there were a couple of amendments made to this bill, they could live with it. They never
said they would like it, but they did say that if a couple of important amendments were made, they could
live with it.
They have a concern with the phrase “the owner, permits an animal to be killed, brutally or viciously,
regardless of whether the animal dies immediately”. I do not know what that means. I suspect that if the
bill stays the way it is, that will be the subject of interpretation in the court. I am sure that will be one of
the areas that is probed. I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that any time any animal is killed, on
some level it is brutal or vicious. I do not know how one could kill something in such a way that no one
could suggest that it was brutal or vicious.
�� (1815)
Anyone who has ever visited a slaughterhouse knows it is not a pretty sight. There is the old joke that
making legislation is like making sausage; the less one knows about how it is done, the better one will
like it. That suggests that sometimes the process of producing the food we eat every day may be
something with which people are not that familiar and they may not be that comfortable if they knew
about it.
The point is, as a society I think it is acceptable for us to use animals, both agriculturally as well as
recreationally and that many of those uses involve the killing of those animals. It is very reasonable for
an organization like the OFAH to raise this concern and to say that it has a real problem with some of
the wording. While the OFAH is not suggesting that the framers of the bill are deliberately going down
this path, I think it is concerned that we may inadvertently go down this path, whether it is through
sloppy language or whether it is through someone who was involved in the drafting process who may
actually have an agenda that is a little different from the mainstream of people who support the
legislation. That is important. The will of this place is not always done. The will of this place is as
determined by the courts and we will have to see that.
It is a very responsible position that my party has put forward, which is that in principle, and I would
say obviously, we agree with the suggestion that cruelty to animals is wrong. It is very reasonable that
we have looked at the bill and said largely our party can support it but there are at least a couple of
amendments that are absolutely necessary to make the bill acceptable. One of the things I have learned
in a year and a half in this place is that often a bill comes forward and it is not exactly the way we like it.
We have to decide if we are going to vote against the bill because it is not perfect, or whether we are
going to vote for it and hope that at the committee level the amendments can be made to make it the way
we think it ought to be, in which case we could support it at the end of the day, but I guess we could
oppose it at the end of the day if the amendments were not made.
That is a reasonable position. That is the position the Conservative Party has put forward. I think that
concerns of organizations like the OFAH are also very reasonable. Quite frankly, it is unreasonable for
legislators, for members of Parliament to stand in this place and suggest, “Do not worry. We have
looked after it. Trust us. The fine print is all okay. Nothing unintended will happen. We know exactly
what the real world implications of the bill will be. We can anticipate with great accuracy how this will
work its way through the courts and at the end of the day, what the real world impact of this will be”.
I think that the concerns brought forward by the OFAH and others, and in fact many of my
colleagues, are legitimate. I also think that animal groups, which I would suggest do not represent the
mainstream but in fact represent a very narrow slice on the extreme, do have an agenda. The fact that
they are excited about the bill and that they think the bill moves things in the direction they would like
to see, in itself causes alarm among many people in the mainstream whether they are farmers, fishermen,
hunters or others who use animals.
Earlier today I heard it said that those who use animals in research are often at the forefront or at the
edge of the wedge of this issue, and that they are comfortable with it. That may be true. I do not know,
but I accept it as true. I come back to my point which is that they operate in a controlled environment
and maybe they have been satisfied that their concerns have been addressed in the fine print and in the
detail, but I think that there are probably other groups that do not feel that way.
The suggestion that the bill needs to be looked at more carefully is reasonable. There are at least a
couple of amendments that need to be made to the bill, which is reasonable. For us to suggest to
Canadians that they should not worry and to trust us is not reasonable. Canadians need to look at these
things themselves. Shining the light on this bill, if in fact it is a good piece of legislation, I am sure it
will survive that process. If it is not, then what it deserves is what it will get.
�� (1820)
Hon. Robert Thibault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the member suggested that he would like to have as long and illustrious career as the member
for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. I wish that for him and all his colleagues in whatever professions
they choose after the next election.
In all seriousness, the member raised some good points. I do not know if it is possible to write any
piece of legislation to satisfy all fears and answer all desires or aspirations. In the House we go through
the process of debate, of consultations before drafting the bill, committee hearing of witnesses, possible
amendments at committee and amendments in the House. If we like the spirit of a bill and we
understand the achievements it can make, I hear the member's concern as I hear from others some of the
reasons they feel perhaps they should not support the bill are the reasons I see that we should support the
bill.
There are many people in society, whether they be fishermen, farmers, anglers, hunters, who have to
terminate the lives of animals. They do it in a responsible and reasonable way and should be
differentiated from people who would act cruelly and viciously, with mal-intent. We see examples of
that all too often where police find a bunch of animals that have been mistreated, starved, not properly
housed or handled. There needs to be a level of differentiation that protects the people who act properly.
Ranchers, farmers, mink ranchers and fishermen in my riding take their work very seriously. The
sealing industry in Atlantic Canada takes its work very seriously and very responsibly. It has adopted
codes of practice to make sure it is done in a humane and non-vicious manner.
Would the member not see that it is in the interest of Canadians generally that we have this type of
legislation and that we use the House and committee as we have the consultation process, as the member
for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell pointed out to hear all the groups, professional organizations that are
supportive of the bill? Should we not use that type of process to do a full review of the bill and amend it
if necessary? Could he not support it on those terms?
�� (1825)
Mr. Barry Devolin: Madam Speaker, yes, I think I have already said that. In my mind the
appropriate course of action would be to support an imperfect bill at this point hoping that the
appropriate changes could bee made at committee.
In terms of the implication that while we can never know for sure what a bill will do or while nothing
is perfect, sometimes we need to take a leap of faith. I accept that suggestion as well, but it is my
understanding, and again I must plead that I am not an expert, that there is already legislation in this
area. It is not as though there is no legislation and we are filling a vacuum.
If the bill passes will it actually improve the situation, meaning is it the lack of legislation or
regulation that is the problem, or are there other problems that prosecutors or police face in terms of
trying to get convictions? I do not know the answer to that question.
I am a cautious conservative person by nature. That means that I approach issues like this with what
could be called a do no harm approach which is that I need to be convinced that the bill will actually do
something good before I will support it. Merely the absence of proof that it will do something bad is not
enough. I go back to one of the main points in my speech which is that when a piece of legislation
comes forward and groups who I feel are extreme in a way that I do not agree with are excited about
something and are very boldly stating that it is going to give them a tool to do what they wanted to do
for a long time, that is what causes me concern. It is what causes me to think that the bill as it now
stands probably does not deserve to go out the door at the end of the day.
As I said, I hope that the appropriate amendments can be made at the committee stage.
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, CPC): Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear the comments of
my colleague and in particular, his comments that the bill is not perfect, but it should be supported. I
think a lot of Canadians can identify with that.
One of the things that is particularly appropriate, in my opinion, is that it raises the maximum penalty
for intentional cruelty to animals to a maximum of a five year imprisonment up from the current six
month penalty. That is a step forward in the right direction. I am sure the hon. member agrees with me.
We have to remember that the Criminal Code in this country, for the most part, was composed and
put together at a time when something like cruelty to animals was not an overriding concern. The
consolidated Criminal Code was introduced into this country before 1900 and so, as a result, many of
the sections that we have and many of the penalties are a reflection of the thinking of that particular
time. So it is important that we have a look at sections like this in the Criminal Code.
I am pleased that we are moving forward on this. This is the third attempt by the government,
apparently, to bring in a bill with respect to cruelty to animals. This is the first one I have been involved
with and I certainly hope it passes. People in my riding of Niagara Falls are calling me, emailing me,
and writing me, and asking me to support this legislation. I wonder if he is feeling that groundswell of
support for this bill as well.
�� (1830)
Mr. Barry Devolin: Madam Speaker, it may not be a surprise to anyone that I agree entirely with
what the whip of my party had to say. He is a wise man and also a lawyer. What am I hearing from my
constituents? I am hearing from several people that, yes, they support the bill. I am hearing from other
people in the agricultural and sportsmen communities a very cautious willingness to consider it or to live
with it, as opposed to really liking it, but always with the condition that a couple of the problem areas be
cleaned up through amendment in committee.
* * *