JUST Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 31, 2001

• 1933

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.)): Good evening and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[English]

Welcome to our Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[Translation]

This evening we will continue our review of bill C-15B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act.

[English]

We have the following witnesses tonight, including

[Translation]

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, represented by Dr. Michael Barr and Dr. Alice Crook. Welcome.

We also have

[English]

Animal Alliance of Canada, with Liz White and Anna Louise Richardson.

[Translation]

We have the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, represented by Mr. Robert Giroux, its president,

[English]

and Dr. Andrew Tasker, associate dean, graduate studies and research professor.

[Translation]

Chiens de chasse Québec is represented by Mr. Richard Couture, its Chair, and Gaston Lemay, Director of research and information.

We will proceed as follows. I will ask each of the witnesses to make a five minute presentation and then we will have a question period from the members of our standing committee.

We could start immediately with the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. I would invite Dr. Michael Barr to speak.

Mr. Michael Barr (President, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association): Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

• 1935

[English]

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm a veterinarian from Antigonish, Nova Scotia. I'm pleased to be here this evening as president of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, which represents over 8,000 veterinarians across Canada.

One of the top priorities of the CVMA continues to be the promotion of animal welfare. Basing its position on science, the CVMA has played a leading advocacy role in establishing policies for animal owners, farmers, and industries. Over the years, the association has formulated animal welfare position statements that often become the reference point nationally.

[Translation]

The Association has a very dynamic Animal Welfare Committee. It includes veterinarians and individuals who represent important national organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Canadian Council on Animal Care and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

[English]

The CVMA supports Bill C-15B.

With me this evening is Dr. Alice Crook, chair of our association's Animal Welfare Committee and coordinator of the Sir James Dunn Animal Welfare Centre of the Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island.

I'll now ask Dr. Crook to elaborate on our views.

Dr. Alice Crook (Chair, Animal Welfare Committee, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association): Good evening, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

We're here this evening to express the association's support for the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code concerning protection for animals, specifically part V.1 of Bill C-15B, “Cruelty to Animals”.

Along with many other groups, the CVMA provided input into the drafting of Bill C-15 through the “Consultation Paper on Crimes Against Animals”, circulated by the Department of Justice in September 1998. We believe the proposed amendments satisfactorily address the concerns we raised in our response to the consultation paper about the existing Criminal Code provisions in this area.

Veterinary practitioners are in a unique position in that they are often the first professionals to examine an abused animal. It is part of our responsibility as veterinarians to protect that patient from further abuse. A more effective law will assist our profession in accomplishing this. It will also enable others who deal with the abuse of animals, notably law enforcement agencies and humane societies, to appropriately address this issue.

We recognize that the amendments have two primary objectives: to modernize and consolidate the existing provisions of the Criminal Code regarding cruelty to animals, and to increase existing maximum penalties and provide new sentencing tools to enhance the effectiveness of the law in this area.

We support the principal changes in Bill C-15B to accomplish these objectives. Our association's support is based on our interpretation and expectation that the amendments will in no way alter or criminalize accepted activities in the treatment or use of animals. These activities include hunting, trapping, fishing, or the practice of veterinary medicine or any activity that is otherwise regulated or authorized by federal or provincial legislation or applicable codes of practice. We recognize that the concept of lawful excuse is inherent within the Criminal Code and remains as protection for legitimate uses of animals that are being carried out in accordance with these widely accepted standards.

With regard to the use of animals in research teaching or testing, the CVMA recommends that the bill be amended to include provisions that will enable the Governor in Council to promulgate regulations. To assist in the interpretation of the bill, such regulations recognize the guidelines of the Canadian Council on Animal Care.

The CVMA supports the principal changes in Bill C-15B as follows.

First, we recognize that a key component of Bill C-15B is to move animal provisions from the property offences part of the Criminal Code to a new section of the code. Moving the animal provisions from the property section reflects the trend in society to recognize the important role that animals play in our lives as companions, as assistant animals, and in many cases as much-loved members of the family. As veterinarians, we see the strength of the human-animal bond all the time. We recognize the relationship that owners have with their animals often greatly exceeds the monetary value that can be placed on that animal.

The CVMA believes that all animals should be afforded protection from abuse under law, regardless of their status as property. The basis for offering this protection is that all animals and birds can experience pain, fear, and the aversion to painful stimuli.

The CVMA believes that treating animal offences as property offences has resulted in inadequate sanctions and a lack of deterrents for those committing animal abuse.

According to statistics from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, less than one-third of 1% of animal cruelty complaints result in charges. Of that number, less than one-half result in successful prosecutions, and of those that are successful, maximum penalties are virtually never exacted.

• 1940

Secondly, the CVMA supports the significant increase in potential penalties for convicted offenders. The creation of hybrid offences gives the crown the flexibility and discretion to deal appropriately with grave circumstances. The movement towards greater penalties is apparent throughout North America. Twenty-seven states in the United States have elevated cruelty to animals from a misdemeanour to a felony offence.

Thirdly, the CVMA supports the amendment to increase the length of time an offender may be prohibited from future ownership of an animal.

Fourthly, the CVMA supports the amendment giving judges the authority to order anyone convicted of cruelty to animals to pay restitution such as veterinary bills and shelter costs to the person or organization that cared for the abused animal.

Lastly, the CVMA supports the inclusion in the Criminal Code of a definition of “animal”. We believe this definition could be better worded, as “a vertebrate other than a human being, or a non-vertebrate that has the capacity to feel pain”. However, we support the principle, that is, to recognize in law that animals are sentient beings.

We believe these amendments will enable tougher, more appropriate sentencing for animal cruelty, which should provide improved deterrence.

I also want to talk about animal abuse as part of the larger picture of violence in our society.

Animal welfare organizations, law enforcement agencies, domestic violence, and child welfare agencies are working together more and more in recognition of the link, the indisputable tie, between animal abuse and violence towards people. Researchers have recognized and documented that violence towards animals is both a component and a symptom of child, spousal, and elder abuse as well as an indicator of the potential for increasing violence and dangerousness in offenders.

Veterinary practitioners are often the first professionals to examine abused animals. Both to protect that animal and because the abuse may be a sentinel for other violence that is occurring within or outside the family, it's crucial that veterinarians deal effectively with instances of suspected animal maltreatment. The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code will help us to do this, and we hope it will help to interrupt the cycles of human violence of which cruelty to animals is one component.

The CVMA position on animal abuse, which is appended to the speaker's notes, which we have left for translation here, encourages veterinarians to report instances of suspected animal abuse to the appropriate authorities. Canadian provincial veterinary medical associations have amended their bylaws within the last ten years so that such reporting is no longer deemed a breach of confidentiality.

While provincial veterinary legislation permits a veterinarian to report, it does not absolve him or her from potential liability if the accused person feels that his or her reputation has been defamed. Some states, for example Idaho, West Virginia, Arizona, and Massachusetts, have dealt with this issue by providing the veterinarian with immunity from prosecution for criminal or civil defamation claims. However, to date, no such immunity is available for veterinarians in Canada.

The CVMA respectfully suggests that the Minister of Justice consider the introduction of such veterinary immunity as a matter ancillary to the criminal law power in this bill, or alternately, that she indicate her support at the provincial level for the introduction of such a provision into the veterinary regulatory legislation in the provinces. This permits another opportunity for the two levels of government to cooperate in matters of significant importance in effectively dealing with animal abuse.

A further suggestion for amendment in the language of Bill C-15B relates to the definition of “negligently” in proposed subsection 182.3.(2). The CVMA respectfully suggests that the phrase “in similar circumstances” be inserted after “reasonable person” as a further modifier of the standard of negligence in recognition of differences in the delivery of veterinary services throughout Canada. The subsection would thus read:

“negligently” means departing markedly from the standard of care that a reasonable person in similar circumstances would use.

Our final recommendation is to respectfully suggest that the committee consider a further splitting of the bill to separate out part V.1 concerning cruelty to animals from that part of the bill relating to firearms. The CVMA believes it is crucial that animal cruelty provisions proceed without further delay.

In conclusion, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association commends the federal government for its introduction of a bill that can provide significant new protection for animals while not jeopardizing recognized and accepted practices in the treatment and use of animals.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Dr. Crook, Dr. Barr, thank you very much for your presentation.

• 1945

We'll now proceed with Animal Alliance of Canada, with Liz White and Anna Louise Richardson.

Ms. Liz White (Director, Animal Alliance of Canada): My name is Liz White. I'm with a national animal rights organization and my job is to protect animals through advocacy, education, and politics. That is the reason why we're here tonight.

We've done some pretty significant work on animal cruelty issues across the country and we look with great interest at Bill C-15B. On behalf of our 20,000 supporters, we strongly recommend, right up front, that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights return the animal cruelty provisions of Bill C-15B to the House for third reading without recommending any amendments. I say this after great thought.

When we were dealing with Bill C-17, we had a number of concerns that were tabled with the justice committee through the consultation process. A great deal of those were not adopted by the minister, but there were a number of changes made between Bill C-17 and Bill C-15B in an attempt to address industry concerns. I think that piece of legislation went a very great distance in doing that.

My concern tonight is—although there are things that we would like to change in this piece of legislation—if those discussions take place, other changes will be made. Our concern is that the piece of legislation will be watered down significantly more. It is our position that the bill has been watered down from Bill C-17 and should not be watered down any further.

We support the definition of “animal”. I don't think it's perfect, but I think it's a good definition. It was developed by the federal government's own body, the Canadian Council on Animal Care, that the government looks to for expertise in animal issues of all sorts. So I think we can support a move forward with that.

We are absolutely adamant that the movement of the offences into a different section—so that animals are looked on differently—is an absolutely crucial part of the legislation and should not be tampered with. Animals, in the current section of the Criminal Code, are no different from toasters and televisions. In fact, when a criminal offence occurs, it's against the person whose property is being offended, as opposed to the animal itself. What this change does is you can actually take into account the offence that is occurring against the animal. There's some recognition that the animal has some interest, even though it remains as an individual's property.

We believe there are sufficient protections against frivolous lawsuits within the Criminal Code. Words such as “wilful” and “unnecessary” are hurdles that—if anybody has been to court—are very, very difficult to get over. It's not included in any other part of the code. If somebody commits a criminal offence against another person, there is no necessity to prove wilful intent or whether it was necessary or unnecessary. This is specific to the animal section and provides all kinds of protection at the court with the use of these words.

We believe that “lawful excuse” should not be inserted as extra words into the code, that “lawful excuse” exists implicitly in the code now, and that extra words would only signal to judges that “lawful excuse” should be considered even more in this particular section as opposed to others.

This piece of legislation in no way criminalizes legal activity. I think the animal use industries, with all due respect to folks who have been before the committee, are simply incorrect in this matter. As long as individuals are acting lawfully and according to codes of practice in the law of the land, then that cannot be criminalized.

Let me be perfectly clear, because I will probably be asked this. I don't like debeaking in chickens, I don't like branding, and I don't like dehorning. But those are issues of policy. They are not dealt with by the Criminal Code. Those are considered legal activities under the laws of Canada and they cannot and will not be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. Those things should and must be discussed, but this is not the night to discuss them.

• 1950

This is the night to discuss whether we're going to change this piece of legislation to recognize that certain activities are not acceptable; that they have to be treated seriously; and that we have to signal, as a government, that the courts should treat these particular cases seriously.

I have one last comment and then I'm going to turn it over to Anna Louise Richardson. I have very serious concerns about amending the legislation to embed the Canadian Council on Animal Care standards in the legislation—for this reason. It sets a bar that is attached to the Criminal Code and this makes it difficult to go above that. It tends to ratchet down.... Maybe provinces with legislation such as Alberta with the Universities Act and Ontario with the Animals for Research Act may very well make standards much higher than those the CCAC requires. My concern with embedding the areas the CCAC wants to embed in the Criminal Code is that this will actually prevent movement forward with regard to research animals, as opposed to backward. This is because it tends to be more static when it's attached to a piece of legislation of this sort.

Thank you.

Ms. Anna Louise Richardson (Associate, Animal Alliance of Canada): Good evening. My name is Anna Louise Richardson.

It's quite a history that has brought me here now. I spent two years with the Toronto Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre, where I received the animals and I received the phone calls from the public, the people of Canada who are upset about what's happening out there, particularly with wildlife, which has less protection than a dog or a cat. There are 230 calls a day to the Toronto Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre. Almost all of the animals there are there because of some kind of human intervention. But what we're talking about is direct abuse to animals.

I have put together squirrels with stab wounds in them from downtown Toronto. There are swans shot in the head. At the moment, there is somebody in Toronto with leghold traps; we've received a racoon with three legs, a skunk two days later with three legs, because they pull or chew to get free from these traps. These are out there. There are numerous pellet gun wounds, particularly in squirrels. Apparently adults are teaching children how to shoot in Toronto by using pellet guns and practising on squirrels. They tend to be paralyzed quite easily by a wound to the spine like that. I've sat up until four in the morning pulling out maggots from bullet hole wounds in racoons and various other animals.

I understand there is more passion for animals that are less common than squirrels and racoons, so I would like to bring to your attention that there is a golden eagle that was shot twice just in the last two months in Toronto. It was brought directly to Guelph University, where the veterinarians passionately tried to give it back its life, but it did not live through this experience. As well, there was a swan in the last two months, again, that was shot in the head.

I know the people of Canada do not want this to continue to happen. It does not represent the society we choose to live in.

When I was five years old or so, Hugh Faulkner started his whole trip to Ottawa in our dining room where his constituency office was. My earliest memories are from when I've been knocking on doors and listening to constituents talk about how they want the society to change and better itself.

I just find it extremely difficult when I read and hear from the animal industry these untruths about animal activists and who we are. My goodness, I am a woman of peace. I want this violence to stop. The people I work with are the same way as I am, more Gandhi followers than anything else.

Trudeau was all over my walls. Growing up, there were no movie idols or anything like that; it was Trudeau I followed. I'm very much a believer in this political system. Please honour it. Please pass this bill. We support you, the liberal government, in passing and moving this bill along.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Liz White: If I could just say one other thing, we have a presentation that people are welcome to pick up. I apologize; because of the lateness of the scheduling, we didn't have an opportunity to have it translated. The last thing—we have a picture of a type of trap that was found in Toronto. I thought people might like to take a look at it, if you would like to pass it around.

• 1955

Someone built this trap. It has spikes in it, with rocks on top to fall. It does not kill an animal, as you can ask other vets around the table. This would probably not kill an animal unless the animal was quite lucky. These are the kinds of things we deal with, and for everyone who does something like that, there are thousands of people who do not want them to do it.

I also have statistics from the United States and England on the connection between animal cruelty and human violence, as well as between animal cruelty and domestic violence, animal cruelty and child abuse. They are direct and we must stop this. All the signs are there. So many criminals whom we end up putting into our prisons and spending so much money on have given all the signs in childhood that they're capable of doing these heinous crimes to humans as well. I have that available for you to view. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): I would like to thank the Animal Alliance of Canada for their presentation.

[Translation]

We will now move on to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, to Mr. Robert Giroux, its president,

[English]

and Dr. Andrew Tasker.

[Translation]

Mr. Giroux.

Mr. Robert Giroux (President, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada): Mr. Chairman I thank you and the members of the Standing Committee on Justice for giving us the opportunity to appear before you to comment on the part of Bill C-15 B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

I am the President of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. I am pleased to introduce my colleague Dr. Andrew Tasker, Associate Dean of Graduate Studies and Research at the Atlantic Veterinary College of the University of Prince Edward Island. Dr. Tasker is also one of AUCC's representatives on the Canadian Council on Animal Care, the CCAC.

The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada is the national association of non-profit and private universities and university colleges in Canada. We represent our 93 members at home and abroad. We provide a forum for discussion and a framework for action at the federal level, facilitating the development of public policy on higher education. We also encourage cooperation among universities and among partners with whom we share interests. AUCC is funded through membership fees, and revenues from publications and contract management service.

[English]

At the outset of these comments, AUCC wishes to acknowledge the work done by the Canadian Council on Animal Care to assess the implications for ethical animal-based research of the cruelty to animal provisions of Bill C-15B.

We support the CCAC submission to the committee, as well as the joint submissions of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Canadians attach great importance to university research. On their behalf, Parliament has provided over $1 billion this year alone to CIHR and NSERC, and the government reinforced its commitment to research and innovation in the 2001 Speech from the Throne.

Canadians know that the generation and application of new knowledge lead to improvements in health care, to innovation, to jobs and opportunities in the global knowledge economy. AUCC fully supports the objective of protecting animals from negligence and abuse. However, we are concerned that Bill C-15B will inadvertently impede what Canadians regard as the acceptable use of animals in research for the benefit of human beings and other animals.

The association is concerned that the bill will leave its member institutions vulnerable to frivolous and unwarranted prosecutions These may result in significant financial costs and serious damage to the reputations of institutions and individuals conducting important animal-based research in a highly ethical manner and under strict guidelines.

The AUCC believes that the wording of parts of Bill C-15B is not sufficiently clear to protect this research. Terms such as “unnecessary pain”, “suffering or injury”, “brutally or viciously”, and “suitable and adequate food, water, air, shelter, and care” are subjective and context sensitive. What is “unnecessary”? What is “brutal”? What is “suitable”? What is “adequate”? To someone who is fundamentally opposed to the use of animals in research, this may mean something very different to those who support or undertake research involving animals.

These terms are not defined in the bill. Their interpretation and application will be highly problematic and may be inconsistent from province to province.

• 2000

AUCC is concerned that without appropriate redress such imprecision in the bill could be used by a minority of Canadians who are opposed to any use of animals for research to instigate private prosecutions against institutions and researchers who carry out responsible, legitimate, and ethically sound research.

Furthermore, the mere risk of frivolous or unwarranted prosecution could have a chilling effect on a significant part of the university research funded by the federal government.

AUCC believes that this redress lies in a clear acknowledgement in the law that the standard of care a reasonable person would use could be satisfied by compliance with a rigorous assessment program to oversee the ethical care and use of animals involved in research and teaching in our universities. That program is composed of the guidelines, policies, and assessment standards of the Canadian Council on Animal Care.

Mr. Chairman, your committee has already received full details of the assessment program from CCAC. The CCAC ethics of animal investigation provide for the use of animals in research, teaching, and testing only if it promises to contribute to the understanding of fundamental biological principles or to the development of knowledge that can reasonably be expected to benefit humans or animals. Researchers are expected to use the most humane methods on the smallest number of appropriate animals required to obtain valid information.

Today, the CCAC assessment program represents 33 years of investment of expertise, time, energy, and money by the universities, the federal granting councils, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, research departments of the federal government, and the private sector. These stakeholders are represented on the council and participate fully in its deliberations and in the development of its policies and procedures.

The CCAC standards are adhered to by every Canadian university, by every member of the AUCC that is engaged in animal-based research. Indeed, compliance with these standards is an absolute requirement of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which support the great majority of federally funded research undertaken in our universities.

Universities themselves have extended that requirement to include all of their animal-based research, regardless of the source of funding. The CCAC standard is held in such high esteem in Canada, and internationally, that federal research departments and private sector companies and laboratories involved in animal-based research have determined that it is in their best interest to participate voluntarily in the assessment program. Other countries have emulated the CCAC program.

Let us be very clear. We are not seeking an exemption from the legislation. We repeat, Mr. Chairman, AUCC fully supports measures that will protect all animals from negligence and intentional cruelty. What we are saying, however, is that in the realm of animal-based research in teaching, rigorous, tried, and tested standards for animal care do exist.

We recommend that the legislation be amended to provide for the making of regulations and that the CCAC assessment program be referenced in those regulations to provide guidance to those administering the law—in determining whether the required standard of care has been met, whether charges should be laid, or whether a prosecution should be continued.

[Translation]

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for giving us this opportunity to convey the views of AUCC in this matter on behalf of our member institutions. Dr. Tasker and I would be pleased to respond to your questions and those of the members of the committee.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Mr. Giroux, for your presentation on behalf of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

The next witnesses will be Mr. Richard Couture and Mr. Gaston Lemay from Chiens de chasse Québec.

Mr. Couture.

Mr. Richard Couture (President, Chiens de chasse Québec): I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to present our point of view on Bill C-15B and on the use of hunting dogs.

Chiens de chasse Quebec is a non-profit organization that promotes the use of hunting dogs and educates hunters on the ethics of using these dogs in a normal context, so to speak.

• 2005

It seems obvious to us, in reading this Bill, that those who thought it up are not hunters in the broad sense of the term, and more specifically not people who use hunting dogs, although many articles in the cynegenetic press have promoted it for decades.

With good reason, we believe that it is necessary to improve the existing legislation regarding cruelty to animals, and we support that because we defend the same values in our activities, whether it is in training or in competitions in Europe and America.

Incidentally, a dog that is treated cruelly cannot be trained for hunting and exercise his natural qualities. Training requirements force owners to give their animals the best care and, for many sensitive breeds, to ensure a stable environment without excessive constraints.

Beyond these considerations, exercising the right to hunt is undeniable, and the use of a hunting dog is an integral part of the traditions of hunting in Quebec and elsewhere in the world. We cannot overlook the formal absence of this fact in the text of the Bill not allowing exclusion of the normal activities of this practice.

In addition, the regulatory requirements with which a hunter must comply to exercise his right to hunt—firearms possession license and others—already contain intrinsic notions of respect for wildlife and are included in the compulsory training courses. Despite the respect for these rules, a hunter could not claim the appearance of right as his defence when accused under the new provisions in the Criminal Code.

Many terms used in this Bill are open to broad interpretations because there is a lack of definitions. In fact, is hunting a necessity, except for native people, that gives the right to kill an animal or is it a legitimate excuse that allows us to circumvent the law? We will have to let the judges and Crown Attorneys determine what is a brutal or cruel act and what is legitimately excusable.

Some sections deal directly with those who use hunting dogs, the breeders, the professional trainers, the clubs or associations of hunting dogs, the suppliers and even the veterinarians who must use bred birds for training and practical hunting competitions. Once again, the lack of awareness about the necessary activities for cynegenetic maintenance and development of the natural qualities of our dogs is demonstrated by these sections without recognized exclusions.

The proposed section 182.1 in the definition of an animal allows the inclusion of any animal without distinction for wild game obtained by the exercise of the right to hunt. Therefore any hunter, with or without a dog, is liable to legal proceedings.

I believe this is an important point. Perhaps we should arrive at a more precise definition than the short one in the Bill.

Proposed clause 182.2(1)(a) uses the term “unnecessary” when pain, suffering or injury is caused to an animal. Although hunting is practiced everywhere in Canada, is it not still a necessity, even for native people? Given the fact that essentially all food is found in the food market, is it necessary to hunt and kill animals? That is the result of the absence of interpretation that will lead to stormy and difficult debates for our society.

Proposed clause 182.2(1)(b) alludes to a brutal or vicious death, wether it is immediate or not. A hunter with a dog, having wounded some game with a shot, and whose dog brings back the wounded animal to his master who then kills the animal, could be accused under this section. However, this is a frequent occurrence and the dog allows one to find the wounded game in a context of the preservation of wildlife since small wounded game is hard to find without a hunting dog.

Proposed clause 182.2(1)(c) is without a doubt the one that confronts the appearance of the right to hunt as a legitimate excuse for killing an animal. In fact, part V of this Bill does not allow for a defence based on the appearance of right since this type of defence does not exist in the types of crimes covered by the chapter on sexual infractions and those against public decency to which the old section has now been moved. That certainly changes the entire vision of things. It means a hunter could be accused without the right to a defence.

Proposed clauses 182.2(1)(g) and 182.2(1)(h) are aimed directly at those who use hunting dogs: hunters; breeders; trainers; clubs; associations that, during training, trials or competitions use breeding stock to improve their dogs' qualities without intending any cruelty towards animals, but rather ensuring that hunting is practiced in the spirit of wildlife conservation.

I will let my colleague continue.

Mr. Gaston Lemay (Director of research and information, Chiens de chasse Quebec): The argument.

In Quebec, almost 15% of the 403,000 hunters have a hunting dog, especially for small game or migratory birds under federal jurisdiction. That represents significant economic benefits for the various regions of Quebec and for various levels of government.

But more importantly, the tradition of hunting with a dog is based essentially on a spirit of wildlife conservation, and hunters who use this means are often its greatest spokesmen. Moreover, there are many who participate in population studies of wild or migratory wildlife, where the use of a dog is essential. This use is recognized and valued by those responsible for various government services, and that shows a sense of responsibility towards wildlife.

• 2010

The ultimate goal of this omnibus Bill to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals) cannot be challenged on its basis by those organizations that seek to defend animal rights. But this Bill cannot interfere with the historic rights and traditions of citizens pursuing activities such as hunting, with or without a dog, while respecting the obligations of decency and respect for animal life.

The effect of the Bill, as it is currently presented, is devastating for the practice of hunting and the use of hunting dogs. This Bill will only provoke confrontational debates among citizens and the interpretation of its application will entail significant expenses. We cannot allow ourselves to let such situations arise and endure in our times. The text of the Bill must recognize the existence of these hunting rights and practices in our society and the legislator must thus demonstrate his willingness to recognize and protect them.

Federal and provincial hunting laws and regulations include prohibitions and infractions in terms of hunting practices which, in a spirit of conservation and respect for wildlife, protect animals against cruel and abusive acts. Wildlife harvesting has been and will always be a part of human activity in a society, even with increasingly stringent controls.

The Department of Justice and the entire Canadian Parliament cannot ignore, and even less neglect the importance and the longevity of the fundamental rights of hunters, fishermen and trappers. They have certainly not demonstrated any more cruelty, and perhaps less, towards animals than humans have often shown towards each other.

Here are our recommendations. Given the current phrasing of Bill C-15B, it seems obvious to us that significant changes and amendments must be made in the interest of hunters and those who use hunting dogs in Quebec.

First, as a preamble or as an exclusion, we must officially recognize that hunting is part of the Canadian heritage and that the normal and recognized practice of this activity cannot be subject to this Bill.

Second, in terms of infractions, in part V.I, in proposed sections 182.2 and those that follow, all activities related to effective hunting practices, including hunting with a dog, training and activities with hunting dogs organized by the various organizations, and any other activity in the normal context of the development of various breeds of dogs must be excluded.

That is the spirit that dog users in Quebec, as duly represented by Chiens de chasse Quebec, consider essential in the major amendments to be made to this project on cruelty to animals included in the omnibus Bill C-15B to maintain and respect our legitimate and heritage rights while maintaining the rights of all other animals included in this proposed legislation.

Clearly, what we are asking is that what has already been sanctioned and regulated in previous legislation remain so and that this indication be included in Bill C-15B, so that any unfortunate interpretation does not end up in subsequent legal proceedings. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Mr. Couture and Mr. Lemay, for your presentation on behalf of Chiens de chasse Quebec.

I would like to make a brief comment. The hunting season officially opens at midnight tonight in Quebec and we will try to adjourn before then.

• 2015

We will now move on to the question period. The following rules apply: each political party has seven minutes, and that includes the question and the answer. Then, in a second round, we will have three minutes. We will start immediately.

[English]

I will ask Mr. Vic Toews to ask the first question.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Couture and Mr. Lemay, I don't know whether we're discussing what is an academic question for you. If this bill in fact goes through, we won't be debating whether the use of dogs for hunting is indeed a cruel practice.

The intent of this bill is, I think, to destroy not only the animal-production-for-food industry but indeed the hunting industry. We had Bill C-68, the long-gun registry, which was the federal government's billion-dollar attempt to register the shotguns of duck hunters. This bill, coupled with Bill-68, is clearly destroying the livelihood of many of my constituents. This bill is simply putting another nail in the coffin of the livelihood of my constituents—and this isn't just something I've dreamed up.

Ms. Liz White, the director of Animal Alliance, has been quoted as saying about this legislation that her worry is that people think this is the end, but it is just the beginning. It doesn't matter what the legislation says if no one uses it, if no one takes it to court, or if nobody tests it. The onus is on humane societies and other groups on the front lines to push this legislation to the limit, to test the parameters of this law, and to have the courage and the conviction to lay charges. That's what this is all about, and make no mistake about it.

So let's be clear: the animal rights groups have a very clear agenda. They want to put you out of business, they want to put my constituents out of business, and they want to stop medical research. This bill does exactly that; this is a step along that way.

What I heard today is the veterinarian society and the Animal Alliance say that these defences that are being left behind in the property provisions and that are not taken into the new part are implicit in the law. That's an interesting concept. I was a prosecutor, but I never heard about these implicit defences in the Criminal Code. There are certain constitutional defences, but we're not talking about that.

This is clearly an attempt to destroy what you believe is important. If these defences are implicit and if this doesn't change anything, why are they so afraid of expressly putting it in the law to protect organizations and groups like yours, like medical researchers, or like the farmers in my constituency who are going to be destroyed by radical animal rights groups set on destroying their livelihood? Why is that? Because they have an agenda, and we've heard what Liz White and others have said about that.

I don't know if you have any further comments, but I'd certainly be more than happy to hear from you if you do.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Lemay.

Mr. Gaston Lemay: In fact, that is why I left Rimouski this morning to come here today. It's not for pleasure, except that of meeting you and the committee.

I am a biologist by profession and so is my colleague, and we have worked all our lives, for 42, 43 and 44 years, to protect our wildlife, whatever the category. A biologist believes in wildlife. I will tell you something that may seem a little ridiculous.

• 2020

I often make the following comparison to hunting and fishing associations. In front of a new house that has just been built, we decide to grow grass because the mother is tired of seeing the kids drag mud into the house. We bring in soil, sow lawn seeds and organize ourselves to get a nice lawn. The grass grows, but we have spent so much money and worked so hard that we don't cut it. The owner will never, ever have a good hay field, and he'll never have a nice lawn.

Our role is to manage wildlife, just as an agronomist can say that you have to cut in July to such a height and so on. That is our role. It is no longer only to satisfy our food requirements, because that is no longer the case today, but to work on meeting the needs of the wildlife itself.

We are here today after having fought for years to avoid losing our game. We say we will use dogs. All hunters should have a hunting dog. I'm not talking about cervidae, but we use dogs to find animals that we would not find if we didn't have a dog. If you send a pigeon outside a cage, you stress the pigeon at the end of the cage. I'm talking about an interpretation here.

If the federal government is there to protect all citizens, it must protect our rights, our heritage and our traditions. That is why we came out in the middle of a retreat to tell you that we must continue to use dogs, according to the rules established by society and those who protect wildlife.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Lemay.

A brief comment, Ms. White.

[English]

Ms. Liz White: I would like to thank Mr.—

Mr. Vic Toews: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, these are my seven minutes.

I'm directing the questions, if you don't mind.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): You have 15 seconds left.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

Mr. Couture, do you have anything to add?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Couture: Yes, I have a comment to make. In fact, we are not asking for much; we are asking for two things: to stipulate in the act that there are breeding animals and there is game. The law as written does not differentiate between them. That is why we can be accused of cruelty to animals if we hunt. Obviously death is not always instantaneous, but that is part of the heritage and it is also a part of animal population control. We would like the law to say that the provisions on activities related to hunting, trapping and veterinary research stay the same as under the old law.

When a law is not clear enough, there are always twisted minds. They are everywhere and those are the ones we have to fear. If they want to forbid hunting, let them organize so that the government passes a law to do that, and we will discuss it. They must not use diversionary roads. That is hypocritical.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Couture.

We will now move on to our second intervenor. Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank each of the witnesses here today.

We have heard many witnesses and we are trying to circumscribe this debate. I think we are getting there. My questions are for the Animal Alliance of Canada group.

As I understand it, the main aim of this Bill was to protect animals from cruelty. In studying this Bill, we see that the ultimate goal, and I think everyone agrees on that, is to protect animals against cruelty. I believe that is not the issue.

In a Bill such as the one before us, as written, according to a lot of testimony, wether from farmers, hunters or trappers, there seems to be the following indication: they lose rights because they have less defences available. When we take part XI of the Criminal Code and create a new part V.I, defences are lost and people, it seems, may lose rights because they lose a defence with section 429.(2), I believe, or something like that.

• 2025

The problem is as follows. There are groups that are yanking the blanket on the white side and others who are yanking it on the black side. I wonder if there is not room for mutual agreement. I believe there is one: we have to protect animals against cruelty.

How can we reach this goal? Is it by changing the law? Do we lack the resources or even the accusations, as Mr. Toews said? What is your ultimate goal? Why not allow the defences that you say are implicit—I personally do not see that they could be implicit—be mentioned? Then I think each group would win.

[English]

Ms. Liz White: Specifically with reference to what is implicit, I think we're probably talking about the “lawful excuse” issue. In discussing this issue with Department of Justice lawyers and with defence lawyers such as Clayton Ruby, Frank Addario, and others who go to court on these very issues, I have learned that certain words are put into law for a particular reason and certain other words are not put into law for a particular reason.

In the Criminal Code, “lawful excuse” is already implicit. If for that section, which is one people are concerned about, you say we are going to add the words “lawful excuse”, you're saying something to the judge. You're saying, look, we want you not only to pay attention to the lawful excuse principle that applies to the whole code, we want you to pay particular attention to the lawful excuse argument in this particular section that relates to animal cruelty.

That's the problem with it. It means that not only do you have to prove that the thing done was wilful—which is a very difficult thing to do in court and is a good defence against frivolous actions—and not only do you have to prove that what happened was either necessary or unnecessary—you have those two arguments—on top of that you have to meet a separate standard that's higher than the rest of the code in terms of an additional lawful excuse. I would argue that this is a de facto removal of the effectiveness of the code to allow us to actually prosecute cases we want to. What we want to prosecute are cases where there has been a criminal action.

I know my esteemed colleagues to the left of me who are with the colleges and universities say that we're going to shut down research. That is factually incorrect. First of all, the public cannot get in to find out what goes on in a research laboratory. In Ontario the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is prohibited by law from going into research facilities. That is true in many provinces across the country. So tell me, with an animal care committee where the majority of people are researchers and there is one community person, who is going to lay the charges if the public doesn't know what's going on and the SPCAs in the country cannot get in?

Secondly, on the issues of all these activities, the law cannot criminalize what is seen to be legal. Hunting, with dogs in certain circumstances, is considered to be a lawful activity. There isn't a prosecutor in their right mind who would take a case to court.

We dealt with the issue of dogs in Quebec. It's a very good example. There are different types of dogs. Dogs that retrieve waterfowl are very good because you don't want injured waterfowl out there not being retrieved, so in some cases we support the use of dogs. We don't like hunting, but where there is hunting for waterfowl, we would rather see the dogs. They're not dogs that attack animals; they retrieve animals for the purposes of dealing with them humanely.

We went to the government and said, we want you to stop using dogs in bear hunting. The government said okay. We didn't use the Criminal Code to do that; we went through the legislative process.

• 2030

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I hear that speech time and again. That's not what I need to know. I need to know the ultimate purpose of the Act. Even if they keep their rights, they will have to protect themselves with defences, existing or not. There are many other lawyers, as well as many other witnesses, who have told us the opposite.

I ask you if the ultimate aim of this Bill is to remove some of the rights and defences of farmers, hunters and trappers, or to protect animals against cruelty. What, in your opinion, is the ultimate aim?

[English]

Ms. Liz White: The real objective of this bill is, in my opinion, not at all to deal with those issues that are perfectly legal. It's to deal with the person who drags a dog behind the truck; it's to deal with the person who puts the cat in the microwave oven and turns it on; it's the person who puts the skunk in a trap and pours boiling water over it; and it's the farmer who walks away from a barn of pigs and allows them to starve to death. It's those issues of absolute cruelty that this bill deals with.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Would you accept an amendment to this Bill that would clearly indicate the three defences possible? Would you accept such an amendment to the Bill?

[English]

Ms. Liz White: If you're talking about “wilful”, “unnecessary”, and “lawful excuse”, they've always been there. They've been there for the entire 100 years the bill has been in existence. This bill is not any different. Those three terms have been considered part of this piece of legislation—

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Yes or no?

[English]

Ms. Liz White: —from the very beginning.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Mr. Lanctôt.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've listened to witnesses on this bill for a couple of meetings. It would be nice—I don't know if it's possible—to find a way to put at ease various people in various categories who feel that a hidden or unintended consequence of this bill will be that they will be illegally harassed, whether they're farmers, hunters, fishermen, animal researchers, or whatever. This is a perfectly good piece of legislation, having to do with increased penalties, etc., and is long overdue. For all the good reasons so many people have put forward, I would certainly not want to see it endangered, delegitimized, or whatever because of this fear of harassment in the future.

Ideally, what we need to do if we can—and that's a big if—is to find a way for the bill as it stands now—and I support the bill, but nevertheless.... I think the bill as it stands now does not put these people at ease. If there were a way to put them at ease, either through amendments or more explicit language with respect to hunting, fishing, or other activities that have their own separate system of regulation or separate legal regime.... Is there any way of amending this legislation—I guess I'm asking this to Liz White—that would serve that purpose but that in your judgment would not endanger the purpose of the legislation? Have you given any thought to that, as to whether if or how it could be done?

Ms. Liz White: It's a very good question. I don't think there are amendments that can be made now that weren't made in Bill C-17 and that won't water it down so it will be less effective than what we have now. That's my worry.

If we talk about dealing with issues of hunting, trapping, fishing, research, and all the others, we're going down the road of exemptions for industries that.... Whether we like it or not, there are people who are cruel to animals in those industries—as with everybody else. It isn't that everybody in the industry is cruel to animals. It isn't that we don't recognize that certain practices in the industries, ones that by any standard we would consider cruel to animals, are acceptable for a whole variety of reasons, medical research being one of them. Two of the standards in the CCAC concern necessary pain and suffering for extended periods of time without any anaesthetic; that's recognized as a legal practice and cannot be prosecuted under this legislation.

• 2035

All I would say to folks is, look at the statistics; look at what has happened over the last 30 or 40 years. Let's look at the last 10 years. In 1997 and 1998, under section 446 of the Criminal Code—which is what we're talking about now, the not-amended section—257 charges were laid across Canada. That's it. Of those, 121 were found guilty, and that's it. What we're talking about here constitutes in my opinion an exaggeration of what the consequences will be of this piece of legislation.

If we go down the road of looking at exemptions, we're going to have a piece of legislation we might as well not have bothered with because it will be worse than what we have now. I've really taken the time to think about this because my fear is that we're going to have these discussions in the committee that will ultimately end up in a very weak piece of legislation. We have a weak piece of legislation now, and this is only marginally better than what we have. The shift from where the animal is viewed as property like toasters and televisions to where we recognize that an animal can suffer is a good move. It's a significant step forward for us to do that. But even that in no way criminalizes any of the activities these folks undertake. It just doesn't, so I don't know what else there is to amend.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I don't think that puts people at ease. One of your complaints about the legislation is that it doesn't criminalize all these things people say you would like to criminalize.

Ms. Liz White: This is not about putting people at ease. This is about a political decision.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes, I understand that.

Ms. Liz White: Folks are going to have to sit around the table and decide from a political standpoint whether they're going to do this or not. We're coming with our point of view and they're coming with their point of view. One is black, one is white, and you're going to have to make the decision. All I'm saying to you is that this is a political decision now. We're not talking about rational discussion here; we're talking about making a political decision.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Are you saying politics isn't rational?

Ms. Liz White: Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I think some of people at the table might agree with that.

It's not rational to think there are going to be all these prosecutions when every single piece of evidence that's been put before the committee by folks like us points to the fact that this is not the case. Tell me one criminal prosecution of a farmer or of someone in a research laboratory that's ever occurred. I don't know of one.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Ms. White.

You have a point of order, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): This isn't about politics; this is about parliamentarians making effective laws. This is what this is about. Politics is something else. This is about making good laws people are going to have to live under.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you for your comment, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

We'll now have another seven-minute round with Mr. Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One thing that does trouble me is the suggestion that this shouldn't be rational. I think that's part of the problem in this debate. It's become very emotionally charged, and rightly so. Violence to animals invokes very strong emotions, just as does violence to people or damage to property. There are all sorts of levels of emotion that enter into this. But at this committee at least we have to be quite rational about this and look at the various perspectives: black, white, and everything in between.

I disagree very strenuously that trying to amend this legislation is not worthwhile. I think one of the major shortcomings in the system faced by those involved in protecting animals is that there are no sufficient benchmarks to judge those who are actually cruel to animals. There's an inadequacy in the number of prosecutions, but those who are convicted are given a slap on the wrist. They're not given a sufficient deterrent. They're not made examples under the law, so the deterrent element is lost. This legislation could be strengthened by upping the benchmarks, even the possibility of, God forbid, mandatory minimums for certain types of heinous acts to animals.

• 2040

I've been inundated in recent days with news clippings about atrocious acts of cruelty, such as the dragging of dogs behind cars and cats and hamsters in microwaves. There are sufficient provisions in the Criminal Code now to lay charges. The problem is that the charges aren't being laid. So to that end it's necessary—and you're doing this, as are many people—to raise the bar of awareness about problems within the current Criminal Code.

The suggestion that by moving animals from the property section to another section and therefore removing these lawful excuses that currently exist.... They are there. They're enacted in the Criminal Code. They do provide legitimate defences. They provide a specific out, if you will, if the facts support it, for certain acts that have been accepted, be it hunting with dogs or cattle practices, anything to do with animals that stakeholders and others engage in. But to suggest that this is going to be the magic solution.... There's a contradiction in that suggestion, in any event.

In the materials we were provided with, Ms. White, you're quoted as saying:

What this piece of legislation does is evaluate the issue in the court's mind. It signals to judges that this is an issue that should be taken seriously. Whether it filters down to the courts depends largely on the people who take the prosecutions to court, but it's an excellent first step.

So the moving of the section is not going to do anything other than signal to the judges, if they pick up the signal, that they're to take these issues with greater seriousness, that they're to put greater emphasis on the crimes and the sentences they might mete out. Ultimately, increased diligence on the part of provinces, prosecutors, police, and judges is what is going to fit the bill.

There's ample evidence of atrocities committed against humans that aren't before the courts, sadly. So this legislation may be a first step.

I strongly believe that a lot of these objectives, if not all of them, can be achieved without moving it out of the property section.

I completely reject out of hand any suggestion that animals and damage to toasters are going to be treated the same. That's trivializing the issue, in my opinion. That's ratcheting up the rhetoric and bringing emotion to an issue where it isn't necessary. That is just not the case. I've been in court. Nobody would ever suggest that an animal is a toaster. That is a moot point. Law cannot criminalize what is lawful. People acting within the criminal justice system are the ones who are going to achieve these ends.

Why can't we achieve this by raising the standard, increasing the education, and working with the provinces to ensure that prosecutions are pursued? Judges are clearly going to get a message at least in terms of the range of sentence that is available to them. How is moving it out of the property section going to achieve all of this?

Ms. Liz White: Are you asking me?

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm asking you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): There are five minutes left.

Ms. Liz White: I'll be very brief. In the current section, the damage is to the person, not to the animal—

Mr. Peter MacKay: I understand that.

Ms. Liz White: —because the animal is the person's property. There's no recognition that animal has an intrinsic right.

Mr. Peter MacKay: There's no recognition by a judge that an animal is different from a piece of property.

Ms. Liz White: That's right.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Are you saying you don't think judges are capable of distinguishing between a cat and a toaster?

Ms. Liz White: I'm not alone. Justice Lamer put this argument forward many years ago. The law, which reflects his opinion, is that where the animals are now, the offence is against the person, not the animal. That's why in part the charges are so low. It's also that it's just a summary conviction. But I do believe that even if you gave the option of a summary conviction or criminal charges, the fact that it's against the person and not the animal in question would mean that the kinds of judgments that would come from that would again be low, because it doesn't recognize what occurs to the animal. It only recognizes that there has been damage to somebody by virtue of damage to their property. I've also been in court on many occasions with regard to these particular situations, and I can tell you that these are very difficult prosecutions to get around based on where the animals are now in the Criminal Code.

• 2045

Mr. Peter MacKay: It's based on the evidence, not on the standard.

Ms. Liz White: I think you're incorrect on that, and Chief Justice Lamer would not agree with you, either. He was very clear on that in the court.

Mr. Peter MacKay: The law is open to interpretation.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Ms. White.

Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

We'll now continue the seven-minute round with Lynn Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to thank everyone for appearing tonight as witnesses. I'm heartened by the fact that, in listening to your testimony, it's clear that everyone has the best interests of animals at heart in terms of cruelty. How we get to that is a different story.

I wanted, Ms. White, to pick up on something you said. I've lived on the family farm all my life. I've debeaked chickens and dehorned cattle. You said something telling tonight that put my antenna up a little bit, and that is that this is not the night to discuss that. My question is, when is?

Further to what Mr. Toews said, I think in fairness you should get a chance to respond to what he quoted you as saying.

About a year ago Clayton Ruby was quoted in the Montreal Gazette as saying something similar. I can quote it to you:

...predicted that over the 10 years, the changes will be subtle, masquerading as protection and continuing to develop as a moralistic adjunct human rights until some of them, at least, get their own entrenched in law.

“We'll see the development of animal rights in a very way, through incremental changes”

—in other words, step-by-step victories—

He goes on to say:

“We need legislative protections legislative change but you take what you can get. We're just at beginning of the movement.”

On your website in an Animal Alliance of Canada “Action Alert” back in March, I think it was, you actually said “Your voice is needed to support revolutionary amendments now”, and of course “Send money”, and I think you said to write the minister as well. This is what worries farmers in my area and animal researchers, because we've seen cases of this happen.

You mentioned that there are no criminal investigations in Canada. I think you said that.

Ms. Liz White: I said I'm not aware of any criminal investigations.

Mr. Lynn Myers: But there certainly are in the United States. There were five grand jury investigations, for example, of people who have done all kinds of outrageous things in various ways in various states. It's the same for the U.K.

What do I say to the farmers and the medical research people who say this is a thin edge of the wedge? Stay tuned for worse things to come? How do you answer that, or can you?

Ms. Liz White: The way I answer that is that all of the issues you and I raised have to be talked about. I think the public wants to talk about them. I think we need to talk about the way chickens and pigs are raised and cows are dehorned, all of the scary issues that people don't really want to talk about around the table.

I don't think the Criminal Code, even with the amendments, deals with those issues. On the dog fighting issue specifically, we dealt with it under another piece of legislation, which was a public policy piece of legislation. That's exactly where I think these issues need to be discussed, such as the development of the codes of practice for chickens and others.

But I have to tell you that many of us who have opinions about that and who want to be part of the process are not included. People who are of my view are not included in the Canadian Council on Animal Care. So we take those discussions and have them outside of those sorts of processes. But they are going to be discussed. They're not issues that you cannot discuss. But the Criminal Code doesn't deal with any of those issues.

I think what's revolutionary, to use that term, is that the most important part of this legislation is taking the animals out of one section of the code and putting them in another and recognizing that animals can suffer and feel pain and that the damage to those animals during a criminal act is to the animal, not to the person who owns the animal. That was my discussion.

• 2050

My family raised dairy cows. I've been on a trap line. I've gone hunting. I've done all of those things, and I've come to a different point of view from you about what is right and wrong with regard to that. But the Criminal Code tonight doesn't deal with any of those issues.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Ms. White, I respect your point of view, but what's scary for me is the fact that you say that ordinary, normal, acceptable codes of practice for agriculture and other things are scary. That's what scares me.

Let me ask you this—

Ms. Liz White: Let me just respond to that.

I have my opinions, which scare you. These folks over here have opinions that scare me. Okay? In the middle are you folks who adjudicate those opinions. You don't take my opinions necessarily, or all of their opinions necessarily. Those opinions are adjudicated through the government process and through public opinion. Frankly, my opinions aren't what everybody in Canada thinks, on most issues. On the Criminal Code issue, I think we have about 95% of the public on our side.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Yesterday, PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, wreaked havoc at an elementary school in London, Ontario. Are you aware of that? It was over milk.

Ms. Liz White: I'm not part of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. We don't—

Mr. Lynn Myers: I was going to ask you, though, if you'll let me finish my question, are you in favour of that kind of a movement?

Ms. Liz White: No. We don't demonstrate. We deal with issues politically, legislatively, and electorally. That's how we deal...and through education. We do not demonstrate. It has been our position since the very beginning of the formation of our organization. We do not do that stuff because we do not believe it moves the agenda forward. So the answer to that is no.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I asked this of the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Can you state categorically that your target is not ordinary farmers who are abiding by the law as it exists and undertaking what we term “normal codes of practice” when it comes to farming? You are not after, because that's not what you want—I'm putting words in your mouth, but I want you to think about it and see whether or not you agree—legitimate medical researchers or people who trap and hunt for a living, or other things.

Ms. Liz White: If you're talking specifically about the Criminal Code, you're absolutely right. I wouldn't deal with those issues through the Criminal Code. First, it costs too much money. Second, if you go to court, you deal with one person under the Criminal Code, not a group of people. It doesn't move my concerns with industry along. It deals with one individual who has committed a crime against an animal. So would I use the Criminal Code? Absolutely not.

Mr. Lynn Myers: What about civil action?

Ms. Liz White: Am I concerned, and do I want to move the agenda forward on issues that are of concern to you as well? Absolutely. But I won't do it through the Criminal Code.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Would you do it civilly?

Ms. Liz White: I'll do it through politics and lobbying.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Civil action?

Ms. Liz White: Absolutely not. We don't do those things.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Mr. Myers.

We'll move now from the Animal Alliance of Canada to the Canadian Alliance, with our next witness Mr. Hilstrom.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): I have a couple of questions. I think I might just as soon see the demonstrations in the streets as this insidious effort on the behind-the-scenes political effort.

I think it's time for the veterinarians to take centre stage. Does the veterinary association not have any concern about research into developing better treatments for animals, and the necessity of using animals for research to better the lives of animals? Do you not have that concern, the same as the university people?

Dr. Alice Crook: We do, certainly. We believe medical research is very important. Many of the medical advances have helped animals as well as people.

We recognize the Criminal Code responds to individual crimes against animals rather than legitimate industry practices. Reasonable, widely accepted industry standards that avoid causing unnecessary pain, suffering, or injury will still qualify under lawful excuse. Legislation, regulations, and other lawful excuses permit over 400 million animals in Canada to be killed each year, and that's done by veterinarians, by researchers, by humane societies.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Is cattle branding cruel and unusual treatment to an animal?

Dr. Alice Crook: It's covered in the codes of practice on beef and dairy cattle. If it's covered in the codes of practice, then it's a lawful activity.

• 2055

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay, but if it weren't covered under the codes of practice for the animal and somebody went ahead and did it anyway, would you be able to charge them under this legislation? Would you recommend that?

Dr. Alice Crook: I don't understand your question. If it weren't included in the codes of practice...?

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: If it's not a practice that's stated in the code, but somebody wants to interpret it as cruelty to animals, you're saying that person could be charged for that specific act.

Dr. Alice Crook: That's a hypothetical question. You're talking about some procedure that—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Let's not talk about hypothetical then.

Dr. Alice Crook: Just let me finish, please.

You're trying to visualize a hypothetical situation that's not in the code of practice. In that case, the prosecutor, in deciding whether to lay a charge, would weigh what the standards of practice were in this kind of operation, if it's commonly done, if it's done under the kind of situation that is normally considered acceptable. This would all be taken into account in deciding whether to lay a charge or not.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Most large-animal veterinarians I know—and I know quite a few of them, primarily in western Canada—would not agree totally with your position on this. Could you describe to us how the veterinary association came to its decisions, conclusions, positions? Did you consult all the vets? Did you have surveys? Did they vote? Or is this just something you came up with as the executive of the association?

Dr. Alice Crook: We've been involved for a couple of years in looking at the changes to the Criminal Code. We've looked at all the information we received from the justice department, and we've discussed this over three years of executives. We didn't exactly survey the members, but it's something that has been talked about in the Canadian Veterinary Journal, and I think veterinarians are aware of our positions.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: But they don't necessarily agree with them.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you. It's a three-minute round now.

Thank you, Dr. Crook. Thank you, Mr. Hilstrom.

We'll now proceed with Mr. Stephen Owen.

Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for appearing to give us your views and the value of your experience tonight.

This is an emotional debate, and that's fine. These are important issues. People's lives and livelihoods are affected, and also people's deep feelings are involved on behalf of the capacity of animals to feel pain.

I think for most of us the decisions at the polls are quite easy. Right across industry—from hunting and fishing groups to humane societies to whatever animal rights or animal welfare group might be involved—the brutal, vicious killing of animals and unnecessary causing of pain offends us all. We've heard from all sorts of groups that that's the case. At the other end of the spectrum, the vast majority of people support what we can easily define in our own minds as the lawful treatment of animals for the public good, which includes human consumption, medical treatment, medical research, and such.

It's in the middle that it gets fuzzy and we have difficulty coming to grips with it. Certainly from the indications I'm getting, most people approve of the general thrust of this legislation, that there need to be more prosecutions, greater penalties, and proper reflection of society's belief, through its criminal law, that animals can feel pain, and that should be reflected in the way we proceed.

I don't know what the difference between legal justification and excuse and lawful excuse is. I've never looked, but I doubt there's some precise distinction between those two. They sound like the same thing to me.

Colour of right is different. It usually involves private property, real estate, but not animals. I can see some distinction there, although I can probably imagine some colour of right that would arise around a regulatory code.

• 2100

We've had some interesting suggestions from AUCC tonight about having regulations. Regulations are not usually parts of the Criminal Code, and they can infringe somehow even by reference on provincial legislation. But that's an interesting idea.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): What is your question?

Mr. Stephen Owen: Oh, yes, the question.

I agree with Mr. Peter MacKay. This is going to be up to prosecutors and judges, largely, and police investigations, to really put teeth in these provisions. But from the point of view of a prosecutor and an attorney general—and I'm sorry Mr. Toews, as a former attorney general, isn't here, but I'll speak to him about this later—I feel it's the responsibility of a prosecutor, and particularly an attorney general, when confronted with a private prosecution that does not meet the charging standards of the province or the jurisdiction, to take over this prosecution and stay it. We should all demand this of our prosecution services and attorneys general and take greater comfort in the fact that frivolous and vexatious lawsuits shouldn't proceed.

Maybe that's more of a statement than a question, Mr. Chair, but I'll leave it at that.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Mr. Owen.

The next intervenor is Mr. Robert Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I will come back to what I said a little earlier, but I will now address myself to the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.

Many people, many groups, surely including many of your clients are in great fear. Wether it is based on anything or not, it is there, and it affects a lot of people. If we were implicitly told that the defences are still possible, or something like that, would you be ready, because you tell me that it changes nothing, and that there is an available defence, to remove those that are currently in the Code?

The number we are given represents perhaps 1%, or 200,000 charges in Canada, which is not a lot. It's true that it's not a lot, but is it related to the current legislation or is it because of the lack of resources or financing if these accusations do not become charges? In other words, is it a lack of prosecutors, or financing or money that these cases are not tried under the current Act?

Mr. Michael Barr: I think that is a question we cannot really answer because we don't know the current status of the judicial system. My practice in Nova Scotia is with small animals. If you ask me if it is a lack of resources, and if it is that lack that is the reasons more charges are not pursued, I really can't answer your question.

[English]

Dr. Alice Crook: That's true. In many cases the prosecutions, the charges, don't go ahead because of the fear that they will be ineffective. Therefore, there's no record of the actual number of cases that don't go ahead.

With reference to your question about making explicit the protections, I believe subsection 8(3) of the code and binding Supreme Court of Canada precedents explicitly provide these protections about lawful excuse and the rules of common law. They are already in the Criminal Code. We're saying it's implicit, not because it's stated in every clause of Bill C-15B, but because it is elsewhere.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Would you be against an amendment that would specify the three defences that exist?

[English]

Dr. Alice Crook: But if it's already there, then I don't see the point of adding it. It's implicit in the whole concept of lawful excuse that exists, because the Criminal Code responds to individual cases of cruelty.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: We changed them...

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It's already over?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): It's already over.

[English]

Thank you, Dr. Crook,

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt.

The next speaker is Mr. Tom Wappel.

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): You can come back.

• 2105

[English]

Mr. Tom Wappel: I have three or four very specific questions.

First, I'm interested in definitions. We have to be precise when we're defining things.

Dr. Crook, your evidence was, and I quote, “All animals and birds can experience pain.” Am I right to say that birds are animals? And you agree that you said all animals can experience pain? I personally agree with this statement, but it's not what the definition currently says, is it?

Dr. Alice Crook: No, you're right, and we do support the definition as it is, which—

Mr. Tom Wappel: Which would not be the same as the one you gave in your evidence, that all animals can feel pain.

Dr. Alice Crook: You're right, I should have made it conform more to the definition in there.

Mr. Tom Wappel: That's what we're doing here; we're trying to be very precise.

You also said, “Animals are sentient beings.” Give me a synonym for sentient.

Dr. Alice Crook: Able to experience pain and suffering.

Mr. Tom Wappel: I'll phrase it this way: is it the position of veterinarians of Canada that all animals can feel pain?

Dr. Alice Crook: Sometimes—and we certainly shouldn't do it when we're talking about legislation—people loosely use the term “animal” when we know it includes non-vertebrates and all sorts of creatures that are “lower on the evolutionary scale”. We're referring to vertebrates, I would say, and really I should have said that.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Indeed, if we simply had a definition that said it's a vertebrate other than a human being, you'd be happy with that, wouldn't you?

Dr. Alice Crook: We recognize that the definition in C-15B was put together by the CCAC, and we support the CCAC. We recognize that they're including vertebrates plus any other animal with the capacity to feel pain, recognizing that there would be an extreme burden of proof on the prosecution to show that something besides a vertebrate was able to experience pain.

Mr. Tom Wappel: And/or a very expensive proposition in defending same.

Ms. White, you argue we don't need the lawful excuse and that no amendments are required to this bill as drafted. Proposed paragraph 182.2(1)(c) says “kills an animal without lawful excuse”. Proposed paragraph 182.2(1)(d) says “without lawful excuse, poisons an animal”. Why do we need those phrases in there if they're implicit in the Criminal Code?

Ms. Liz White: As I understand it, those were there as an attempt to give some comfort to industry.

Mr. Tom Wappel: All right. If they're there, why not put them elsewhere?

Ms. Liz White: Hang on just a second. The justice department sat down and tried to give some comfort to industry and did so as they saw fit according to the law, without impinging and adding additional words in other sections of the legislation that would add on top of “unnecessary” and “wilful” an extra burden of proof. They don't need to be there, but the legislation is the way it is and we're prepared to live with it the way it is.

Mr. Tom Wappel: Okay, thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Tom. Your two minutes are over.

Thank you, Ms. White.

We'll proceed now with Peter MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I neglected in the opening round to thank all of you for being here. We do very much appreciate and value your testimony on the issue we're grappling with here.

I would like to follow up on Mr. Wappel's line of questioning. What is the harm in providing comfort to industry, to researchers, to dog hunters? What is the harm?

Ms. White, please don't take this as provocative or in the wrong way, but you've constantly referred to the fact that this legislation provides too much comfort in some way, or in some sense the inclusion of the words “lawful excuse” and these sections you feel are implicit in the code will somehow allow those who are cruel to animals to escape prosecution.

It occurs to me, based on these statistics, that the main problem is we're not getting enough people before the courts in the first instance. This legislation, even if it's passed as is, won't accomplish that. It seems to me provincial regulations are what we need to look at, which I'm sure you're concerned about as well, and we have to be more aggressive in actually laying charges and upping the benchmarks when we secure convictions.

• 2110

Ms. Liz White: Right. There are two reasons why such a small number of charges are taken to court.

I agree, there need to be more prosecutions that meet the standards of the Criminal Code. But under the current legislation, humane societies and shelters that have gone out to lay charges can't get convictions, so they give up. They don't bother.

In fact the cat situation in Toronto, where there is video footage of a live cat being skinned over a period of hours or days, has led to frustration for the police and the people who are a part of the prosecution because the current Criminal Code presents a problem; the owner of the animal isn't known, and because the damage is against the owner, not the animal, the prosecution can't be laid. It has to be laid differently as a mischief charge.

The whole difficulty with this situation is that the Criminal Code does not allow for proper prosecutions in situations where there is very serious criminal activity occurring against animals, and that particular case absolutely points to the problems with where the animal definition is in the code right now.

Mr. Peter MacKay: But those prosecutions are based on evidence.

Ms. Liz White: Yes, absolutely. But the police and—

Mr. Peter MacKay: The ability of the police and the crown to produce evidence of a wilful act.

Ms. Liz White: But the police can't lay charges. They have to lay charges differently than under the Criminal Code.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I submit that they can lay charges and they do lay charges.

Ms. Liz White: The police know the Criminal Code. I would argue that the police in Toronto know the Criminal Code and use it all the time.

They need an owner.

Mr. Peter MacKay: They're obviously not using it enough.

Ms. Liz White: They need an owner in order to lay a charge. Who are they going to charge? They need an owner. The guy who did the crime doesn't own the animal.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Ms. White. Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

We'll now proceed with Mr. Derek Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you.

I'm still on this issue of “without lawful excuse”. Ms. White has been the spokesperson for the background on this. As I read the section, I'm one of those who think those words absolutely have to be there—“without lawful excuse”. If you read proposed paragraph 182.2(1)(c) without those words, the section simply reads, “Every one commits an offence who, wilfully, kills an animal.” Well, hello.

You have to have something in the section that allows for what we already do in society. We have to end the turkey's life in order to have the Thanksgiving dinner. The lives of cattle are ended for food purposes. The dog who is dying is euthanized. So you simply can't leave the wording this way.

Hearing me say this now, do you still feel the same way, that we don't need the words “without lawful excuse” in this part of the Criminal Code?

Ms. Liz White: Absolutely, because the context with which the code is interpreted is with lawful excuse. It's not inserted in any other part of the code and yet the lawful excuse issue is implicit in all of the code. Making an added effort to notify judges that in this particular section not only must the lawful excuse of the code be met, but particular reference to this particular thing must also be made just adds an additional hurdle for us to get over in court.

It makes it very, very difficult, and what we'll see is exactly what Mr. MacKay is worried about. Prosecutions won't move forward again because we have to meet necessary/unnecessary, wilful/unwilful, “lawful excuse” times two—not anywhere else, but in there times two. And that's what we don't want to do.

Everybody around the table wants this piece of legislation to start addressing those issue we all find so offensive: the cat that's skinned alive; the dog that's dragged behind the car; the animal that's put in a microwave. We want those cases dealt with. And what we're doing here is putting up a barrier to that happening.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay. So I can take it that all the witnesses agree there are many lawful reasons for killing animals.

• 2115

Ms. Liz White: Absolutely.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Lee and Ms. White.

Brian Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I agree with Mr. Lee's point. I'm a lawyer as well. I think his point of view is perfectly rational and logical. We're here to make laws that are clear, not unclear.

When I was a kid I had a dog, which was very near and dear to me, and somebody poisoned it. We spent a lot of time trying to find out who did that. The basic thing in criminal law, Ms. White, is that before you can bring something before a court, you'd better find out who did it. And in a lot of these cases that's the problem, as I see it.

Somebody mentioned a bag of cats mutilated and thrown beside the ditch. We're all outraged at the cats being mutilated, but we still have to find the person who did it. You can bring all the laws you want, but you need evidence. You have to find those people, and this law doesn't deal with that problem. This man here spent 25 or 30 years as a sergeant of the RCMP and he knows all about those problems of trying to track down the accused and getting him before the courts. This doesn't solve that problem.

Ms. Richardson, I respect your admiration for Pierre Trudeau. You're right to respect and admire that person, but basically that has nothing to do with the job we're trying to do tonight. I just want to make that comment. That has very little to do with it.

Ms. Anna Louise Richardson: May I respond to that?

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I am very concerned about a fringe group harassing law-abiding Canadians trying to make a living, whether it's in the trapping business or the farming industry or fishing and so on, with this sort of thing. They don't need that. I find things in this legislation that just suggest to me this is what we're trying to do.

One section I really have problems with is proposed paragraph 182.3(1)(b). It says “fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, air, shelter and care”. The word “negligently” is used throughout the section, but it's deliberately omitted in that paragraph. Let's say there was an ice storm where Quebec farmers couldn't...the heat wasn't coming to their barn and so on. I look at that section and it says “fails to provide suitable and adequate”. They could try to use the defence of, well, I'm not negligent, but it's deliberately not in there. It's not there, yet it seems to me so easy to put “negligently fails” and that would cover it.

You're feeding mice sugared water in your lab for some experiment. Maybe you're trying genetically modified grain on them as opposed to non-genetically modified grain, and somebody says “fails to provide adequate food”. What's your defence under that section? You can't try to say that you're acting as a reasonable research person because they don't allow you that defence there.

It seems to me they're also playing trickery here. They're taking out “wilful and lawful excuse” and normal mens rea defences and moving it into some sort of tort concept under proposed section 182.2. This whole thing invites and speaks of harassment, as far as I'm concerned, and I would be very frightened of that kind of wording if I were in any of these industries that have been before this committee.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Is there a question, Mr. Fitzpatrick?

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Yes, I'm wondering why we cannot include in proposed section 182.3 just a minor amendment where it says “fails to provide”. Preceding that word we could put in “negligently fails to provide suitable” water, air and so on. That would provide a lot of comfort to people such as the two gentlemen who made the trip all the way from a distant area in Quebec, and so on.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Monsieur Giroux.

Mr. Robert Giroux: Thank you very much.

I'd like to ask Dr. Tasker, who is a specialist in the medical research field, to provide a comment on what has been said and a little bit on the exchange that has been taking place.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Dr. Tasker.

Dr. Andrew R. Tasker (Associate Dean, Graduate Studies and Research Professor, Department of Anatomy and Physiology, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island; Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada): Thank you very much.

I very much agree with you, and this is the essence of our concern, that there could in fact be frivolous prosecution without the necessary safeguards in place within the legislation. Hence our desire to see the reference to the universally accepted standard, as espoused by the Canadian Council on Animal Care.

• 2120

As my colleague, Mr. Giroux, has indicated, all universities, all members of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada adhere to these guidelines.

I am also compelled to point out that there is a bit of a fallacy in some of the statements that have been made previously. Firstly, they suggest that groups interested primarily in animal welfare and animal rights are not represented on the CCAC. This in fact is not true. The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies is a founding member of the CCAC and one of our most valued contributors.

I'm also inclined to point out that there was a comment made that the CCAC standards and guidelines establish a minimalist bar. This in fact is not true. If you specifically look at the way the procedure works, all institutions have an institutional animal care committee, which includes representation from animal researchers, members of the research community who do not use animals, and members of the lay public. The specific reason why that is there and why all proposals go through that process is so that the specific ethical standards that are seen to be appropriate within that institution, beyond what is defined within the guidelines, can be imposed, so that individual jurisdictions have the opportunity to evaluate individual proposals, the scientific merit of individual proposals, the standards that are being imposed on the care and use of animals within individual proposals, at a standard that is in fact higher than what is articulated throughout the guidelines. This in fact is one of the fundamental tenets of the CCAC approach.

So it's our contention that in fact this approach, coupled with a very aggressive educational component, which is an essential part of the CCAC mandate, in fact advances the whole issue of due care and use of animals to the highest possible ethical standard within the limits of the interest of the institution, to a point that is higher than what would be espoused as a minimum.

So I do welcome the opportunity to correct that. I completely agree with you that the insertion of the word “negligently” would be a very valuable addition. I completely agree with you—or at least to what I'm hearing as a general consensus—that some attempt to define the terms used within this legislation in reference to well-accepted internationally and certainly nationally recognized definitions, as defined by agencies such as the Canadian Council on Animal Care, would help to alleviate a lot of the concern that exists within the medical research community.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Dr. Tasker.

[Translation]

The next speaker is Mr. Robert Lanctôt, for three minutes.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I will ask questions instead of speaking. It's difficult not to speak.

I think the increase in sanctions would already be a great step in terms of cruelty to animals, and I am asking you again to be precise. If, in the proposed subsection 182.2(1), we added “without legal justification, legitimate excuse and without apparent right”, that would make about all the witnesses feel more secure by specifying that there is a fear, a serious fear.

Second, when we talk about feeling pain, veterinarians tell us that today it will be very difficult and very costly. My earlier remark that it is perhaps the enforcement of the law that is a problem, the resources and the financing... If we add additional costs for consulting work by the Crown and the defence, do you really think you will get the result you are looking for?

Personally, I seriously hesitate in believing that you will get it. On the other hand, if we make the amendment I am proposing to this Bill, I think you will win, that animals will win, that farmers will be protected and that they will feel safer.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. White.

• 2125

Ms. Liz White: I wish I could agree with you, but I don't. I think what will happen if this occurs is that the prosecutions either won't happen or they will be costly because we don't get anywhere because of the hurdles over which we have to get to even begin to prove a case about cruelty.

The more hurdles you put in the case, and there are already hurdles that don't exist for any other part of the Criminal Code, such as “unnecessary”, “wilful”.... The “lawful excuse” added as a separate word into that section says to a judge, we want you for the purpose of animals to pay even more particular attention to the lawful excuse issue, above and beyond any other part of the Criminal Code, even though it's implicit in the rest of the code. What that says to me is it makes prosecutions that are already hard, even harder, and you will have done in the legislation what I believe you don't want to do.

While you want to give comfort to industry about this issue, and I understand why you want to do that, the facts before you are that people in the industry are not prosecuted criminally for legal activities, haven't been, aren't going to be now, and won't be in the future because that piece of legislation doesn't criminalize legal activity in any sense of the word. So by adding that added set of words I think you take away the kinds of movement we're trying to do, which is to move this piece of legislation forward and give very real protection for animals that are truly cruelly treated.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Ms. White. Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt.

The last intervention will be that of Peter MacKay.

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: I want to pick up on one final issue, which Mr. Owen actually alluded to, and it is the issue of private prosecutions. Although Ms. White strenuously suggests that there won't be any danger to stakeholders, researchers, legitimate groups who deal with animals whose practices may be questioned by those who seek to protect animals, is there a fear on the part of research councils, your group, Mr. Lemay, that if these provisions are to pass in the current form and animals are to be removed from the property section, you will see this become a tack that can be taken in terms of private prosecutions?

The reality is, and Mr. Owen alluded to this fact, there isn't an aggressive stance taken on the part of attorneys general in the provinces to intervene in private prosecutions. That's not how it works currently. I agree with him, that's probably the way it should work, but more prosecutors are overwhelmed with the caseload they're carrying now. The sad reality in my experience is if you're in a rural office doing your best...head office won't intervene in the day-to-day activities of crown prosecutors in the discretion that's being exercised at that level. Is that a legitimate concern, Mr. Tasker or Mr. Lemay?

Dr. Andrew Tasker: Yes, Mr. MacKay, that is the essence of our concern. In fact, I might even go one step further, which is to suggest that although I think there is a legitimate concern that there will be prosecutions, private perhaps, there is also a detrimental effect to researchers who are engaged in legal, ethical scientific research for the betterment of humans and animals in Canada. There is a legitimate fear that they may be subject to prosecution that could in fact have a chilling effect on much of the research and development activity we've strived so hard to foster within this country in the last little while and that the federal government in particular has been extremely supportive of fostering in the last while—

Mr. Peter MacKay: The bad publicity, I suggest, is sometimes even more detrimental than the outcome of any private prosecution. Who gives you back your reputation?

Dr. Andrew Tasker: Absolutely. There's a reputational issue that is obviously of concern to the researcher.

One further point, if I may, is that I think one of our fundamental goals is to get young people, young scientists, interested in the research agenda and in advancing the innovation agenda within Canada. I fear these kinds of public concerns, this kind of open-ended legislation, could in fact dissuade people from embarking on those types of careers.

• 2130

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much, Dr. Tasker.

Dr. Andrew Tasker: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

[Translation]

In closing, I would like to thank all the members of the panel for their contributions tonight.

[English]

Whatever your position is, your contribution is very much appreciated. We're here to try to produce better laws, and your contribution again is very much appreciated.

[Translation]

Thank you very much, everyone. The meeting is adjourned.