Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief so as not to delay the adoption at second reading of this bill, which will undergo consideration in committee very shortly.

We know that this is the second attempt—if that is the right term—to legislate in this area . As other parliamentarians have noted, there was Bill C-13. The use of DNA to identify genetic ties and so forth is completely new to all of us, the criminal justice system and even other sectors.

This completely new technology has been used for such purposes for several years now. It has proved effective, to the point that it can now be integrated into our criminal law procedures, particularly with regard to taking DNA samples. Previously, for example, fingerprints were taken or other methods used. Now, of course, our methods are much more sophisticated and the applications very different from those in the past.

According to the bill summary, the bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code, the DNA Identification Act—meaning Bill C-13—and the National Defence Act to facilitate the implementation of the acts in question.

The first element is somewhat different from the others. It:

(a) allows a court to require a person who is given notice of an application under subsection 487.055(1) of the Criminal Code and who wishes to participate in the hearing to appear by closed-circuit television or a similar means of communication;

Once again, this is very different, in technological terms, from the rest of the bill. However, this technology enables and allows Canadian criminal law to better function.

The second element also mentions the following:

(b) allows samples of bodily substances to be taken as soon as feasible after the time set by an order or a summons for the taking of the samples....

This is very important in order for a proper inquiry to take place to have a summons and then be able to utilize that instrument to obtain bodily samples in order to make the later determinations that are required.

The next element of the bill reads:

(c) requires the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Policy to destroy the bodily substances collected under an order or authorization and the information transmitted with it if, in the opinion of the Attorney General or the Director of Military Prosecutions, as the case may be, the offence to which the order or authorization relates is not a designated offence;

In other words, if the material was accumulated and it was not one of the designated offences, this is an order to have what was acquired destroyed. I believe a colleague from the New Democratic Party referred to these data banks based on people not having been convicted of anything or at least not having been convicted of offences where this would normally be permitted. In other words, we do not utilize the process for an offence that is not covered, obtain the information and then keep it in case someone does commit an offence in which it would qualify. Obviously that would not be appropriate.

The next element reads:

(d) enables the Commissioner to communicate internationally the information that may be communicated within Canada....

Consequently, if data has been collected in Canada in connection with what I have just listed, we are allowed, but only in keeping with Canadian legislation, to share that data with similar authorities in other countries. Once again, this is very logical, provided we keep within the guidelines we have set for ourselves in Canada, so as not to provide to a foreign authority information that it would not be acceptable to disclose within this country.

Lastly, the commissioner is authorized to communicate information for the purpose of the investigation of criminal offences, and to subsequently communicate that information for the purpose of the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences.

That is the main thrust of this bill, a bill I recommend to the House and will be pleased to support myself. I will not take up any more of the House's time, but will close by saying that I hope to see this bill passed in the very near future.

Is the House ready for the question?

Question.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Agreed.

On division.

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

(Motion agreed to and bill referred to a committee)

Hon. Keith Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-50, an act to amend the Criminal Code in respect to the cruelty of animals.

I know most of us in the House have been approached by many of our constituents profoundly and deeply concerned about the protection of animals, in particular cruelty to animals. I venture to say that all of us in the House are firmly opposed to the cruelty to animals. It is a motherhood and apple pie type of issue.

The challenge we had though was trying to ensure that we had a confined piece of legislation that worked and was able to prevent cruelty to animals. That it would prevent those heinous actions that are committed by people who must be psychologically deranged to harm animals in that way. However, we also wanted to have legislation that would enable us to protect and ensure that the normal use of animals, be it by farmers or in research, would be carried on without the fear of prosecution. That, indeed, was the challenge that we had.

I think we have come up with a bill that strikes a balance. Over the last while we have shared and worked with groups, be they in agriculture and farming, or in the scientific and research sector, or the pharmaceutical areas, to craft a bill that was able to balance those needs. Normal activities would not be prosecuted, but only those actions that are taken by certain individuals. I might add that we know that those individuals, particularly when they are younger and commit acts of violence against animals, torture or even killing animals in a heinous fashion, are actually harbingers of future psychological problems and in fact future violence.

In other words, the actions by the young who commit these atrocious acts of violence against animals is a red flag, a harbinger of things that could come in the future, and particularly more egregious violent acts that take place against humans.

Some interesting studies have been done in fact to map this out. Good scientific research has been done to demonstrate this, so we now watch for those children and young people who are engaging in acts of violence against animals. We now know that we have to be very careful and engage these young people in a way that should offset and prevent future violent actions that we see sometimes in adults.

They study looked at populations of sadistic murderers, sadists, those who have committed violent acts against adults. Research has found that a majority of those adults who were incarcerated in jails for committing those violent acts, if we look back in their history, started off committing violent acts against animals when they were younger. They would torture the family pet, kill the family pet or kill other pets in the areas. I think the public at long last will be very happy with this bill.

In 2003 the other place made two amendments that the House adopted on this particular initiative. These two amendments were specifically requested by industry organizations. The reason, as I said before, was that these two amendments were there to satisfy their comfort level and their fear of prosecution.

For example, with regard to these two amendments, Canadian farmers said that they were 100% behind these two amendments and that this amended legislation was technically sound and was as strong as ever. With that, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture encouraged Parliament to pass this legislation. Unfortunately, the legislation then died in the other place which is where it continued to be paid attention to and the amendments were not requested or supported.

Let me fast forward a year. In November 2004, several months after the opening of Parliament, the Minister of Justice received a letter from a large coalition of industry groups that explicitly requested retabling of the animal cruelty amendments that had died. This group included a variety of organizations including the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, the Ontario Farm Animal Council, the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association, and it also included organizations involved in trapping such as the Canada Mink Breeders Association and the Fur Council of Canada.

It was also supported by other groups such as the Canadian Animal Health Institute, the Canadian Association for Laboratory Animal Science, and Canadian research based pharmaceutical groups as well as the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association.

We have heard from a wide variety of groups. We have passed these amendments through those groups. They have gained support among these groups. That is why they are in the House today.

These industry organizations wrote to the Minister of Justice before the legislation was tabled and specifically requested that these amendments be tabled and passed. That is why I hope, at the end of the day, members of the House will see that these particular amendments are apolitical, but are intended to protect animals within our country and that they are reasonable and balanced.

When the bill is studied in committee, I am sure committee members will be interested to hear what those groups have to say. I am also certain that the groups involved will reiterate their positions and the points I made here.

It is true that the coalition does not include hunting and fishing organizations, and that the anglers and hunters continue to express concerns. As a matter of logic, we could ask how it could be that animal researchers, agriculturalists, trappers and veterinarians all feel adequately comfortable that these amendments manage to strike a balance that enables the normal use of animals for food and other needs while on the other hand ensuring that we have legislative capabilities to arrest, prosecute and have the full force of the law applied to those individuals who commit heinous acts against innocent animals?

The simple matter is that hunters, animal researchers, veterinarians, farmers and trappers alike do not need to invoke any defence to justify their activities, but let us be clear about what the law actually prohibits. It only prohibits the wilful, reckless or criminally negligent affliction of pain that is known to be avoidable and unnecessary. In the case of the new offence, the law prohibits the intentional killing of an animal with brutal or vicious intent.

Let us think about that for a moment. If a person were to knowingly cause more pain to an animal than is necessary, if a person were to fall significantly below the reasonable standard of care, and if a person were to brutally or viciously intend to kill an animal, how could we not say that this person is engaged in wrongdoing?

I want to emphasize that we are excluding from this the normal activities of hunting, trapping, fishing, research, and the production of food products that are a normal aspect of civilized society.

These acts, though, must be punished. The reason why we are bringing the bill forward is that we cannot have a loophole in the legislation. We need to enable the courts to prosecute adequately those individuals who do commit acts of wanton violence and torture against animals. There are no excuses for that kind of behaviour.

The reality is that the vast majority of all industry participants take great care and cause no more pain than is required to meet their objectives. When the killing of an animal is required, the intention of such a person is one of respect toward that animal and the humanity expressed by that person. They kill the animal with a method known to be effective, quick and relatively painless.

If this is the case, there is no cruelty and therefore there is no crime. The humane use and killing of animals is not a crime, but simply a fact of life since the beginning of time. The Menard case, the leading case on cruelty to animals, makes perfectly clear that in an industry setting, causing only necessary pain is not a crime.

Let me say a few words, if I may, about concerns that have been expressed about the offence of brutality or viciousness in the killing of an animal. It has been said that the phrase “regardless of whether the animal died instantly” must be removed because it precludes the person who caused immediate death as some kind of offence and could be charged.

Let me conclude by saying that I think in principle, most members, if they read the legislation, can see that we have tried to strike a balance. The objectivity of it can be found in the fact that groups that are involved in the use of animals and animal products, and in the killing of animals, support the bill. They recognize that on one hand we have to have the legislative capabilities to address and prosecute those who torture and kill animals needlessly and on the other hand protect those who kill animals under law abiding activities in this country, including hunting, fishing, trapping and research.

Mr. Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC)

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's presentation. Members in my party are supportive of this bill. However, we think there are a couple of important amendments that need to be added to the bill.

I heard a reference to hunting and fishing organizations that may not be supportive of the bill. Why are they not supporting the bill when so many other organizations are? I had the opportunity to meet with members of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters last week. They have some concerns with the bill. I would not say that the federation embraces the bill. I think it would be fair to say that the federation is prepared to live with the bill if there were a couple of important amendments.

There is a concern as to what happens when Parliament passes a law. Members of Parliament state that this is what we are trying to do and this is the balance we are trying to strike. The reality is that at the end of the day it is the courts that will decide in terms of what is or is not prohibited by that act.

It is widely known that animal rights activists have stated quite categorically that it is their intention to push for amendments as far as they are possibly able to do so. That is actually the root of the discomfort for many people with this bill.

What comfort would the parliamentary secretary offer to an organization such as the OFAH in terms of the courts not interpreting this in a way that he does not intend and that does actually infringe on activities that are considered very mainstream?

Hon. Keith Martin

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks a very good question that comes to the root of the challenge that we had in the construction of this particular bill.

I believe I can give the hon. member the assurance he seeks. I completely agree with the concern that the member has. Groups such as various antivivisectionist groups would like to basically prohibit all types of animal research. They will try to push this issue as far as they can and the member is correct.

We have made sure that this is not the case in this bill. We constructed this bill very clearly to prevent exactly the concern he mentioned, which is also our concern.

If I may give the member some level of comfort, which I think is what all of us have to have, the approval of research based groups which are at the sharp edge of the antivivisectionist movement in the world approve of this bill. They feel comfortable with this bill, that it will not be utilized and applied by the courts in such a manner that it will affect their ability to engage in the research that they do for the betterment of not only humans but in the veterinary sciences as well.

We have these other groups that are at the sharp edge of antivivisectionist groups that would like to do exactly what the member mentioned. However, they approve of it. I think that if any groups were to feel uncomfortable at all about any part of this bill, it would be those groups that are involved in the research and those types of activities that are most of concern to the hon. member.

We brought those groups on board. We have given them the opportunity to look very carefully at the amendments. Those amendments have passed mustard with them. As a result, we feel very confident that this particular bill will not be used in the courts by antivivisectionists, as the hon. member mentioned.

Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC)

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-50, the animal cruelty bill.

Like others before it that attempted to legislate against animal cruelty, this bill as presented is flawed. It is flawed in such a way that it could attempt to make criminals out of law-abiding citizens in my riding of Leeds--Grenville. It will do this in a similar fashion as the long gun registry, and in fact it will target many of the same people as the long gun registry, the hunters, the fishers, the farmers, as they conduct their normal day to day affairs.

We need to ensure that the people who live in the city and who only go to the country to view the scenery stop writing bills that affect the hard-working rural residents of Canada.

Bills such as Bill C-50 are spawning local political action groups such as the landowners associations and the Rural Revolution. Bills such as this are frustrating rural residents and pitting them against politicians and those who enforce such poorly written legislation. Bills such as this are further damaging the fragile rural economy in Canada, and in particular my riding of Leeds--Grenville.

Not only are the residents in danger of being charged under this particular bill, but visitors to my riding could also be targeted. The economy in my riding relies heavily on visitors. They come from the cities. They come from the United States. They come from Europe and from the Pacific Rim. They come to enjoy the outdoors.

Leeds--Grenville prides itself on being an outdoor recreational playground boasting some of the finest fishing and hunting in the world. The giant muskie found in the waters of the St. Lawrence is celebrated both on and off the river with several communities boasting local tally boards for those anglers skilled enough to catch one.

Recently in Leeds--Grenville, many residents and visitors were on the water in their small boats and homemade blinds stocking up on their yearly supply of ducks and geese. This probably sounds cruel to city folk with idealistic dreams about the food chain, but it is a necessary part of many people's lives in Leeds and Grenville. We do not need to spend too long carefully walking the shores of the St. Lawrence to recognize that there are a lot of geese in the area and a little hunting is not going to hurt the population.

Currently, folks are involved in another annual event, the deer hunt. Here is another creature that is in plentiful supply. Without some of its natural predators readily available, the deer population explodes and hunting has become part of that cull process. In fact, we have seen many accidents throughout eastern Ontario because of the exploding deer population. The deer hunt is also the traditional way in which many people supplement their food supplies for the winter. The deer hunt is so revered in the riding that many folks do not actually plan events during the time of the deer hunt.

All this is to say that hunting and fishing are as much a part of the rural lifestyle in Leeds and Grenville and throughout Canada as riding a bus is natural to the lifestyle of city dwellers. Residents in my riding object to portions of Bill C-50, which for the first time in Canadian history make it an offence to kill an animal brutally or viciously without defining the terms “brutally” and “viciously”.

The bill also does not exempt from this offence the killing of animals in the normal and lawful conduct of commercial fishing and hunting. Residents in Leeds and Grenville request that this specific section of the bill be revised to provide an explicit exemption for the killing of animals in the course of hunting and fishing.

Traditional animal use industries and recreational fishing and hunting should be exempted from prosecution under this legislation. I would look to the time when we did have the support of our hunting and fishing organizations in order to get this bill through the House. My research shows that many jurisdictions that have animal cruelty legislation provide such exemptions. Without such an exemption, I and residents of Leeds and Grenville are convinced that certain animal rights groups will bring forward criminal complaints under the legislation against fishing and hunting enterprises and the thousands of sports people in my riding.

These organizations have already declared their intent to use the revised legislation to challenge traditional animal use industries and recreational fishing and hunting. Justice officials from the government advise that if such changes are brought forward, there are sufficient offences to get the charges dismissed. I would advise the justice minister that this is not sufficient.

The point is not whether residents of Leeds--Grenville can pay for a lawyer and beat the charges at great expense to themselves and the court system. The point is hunting and fishing enterprises are already licensed by various levels of government to conduct their work. Hunters and fishers are also licensed and must abide by laws. They should not have to get out of bed in the morning wondering if some other citizen with a larger cash reserve is going to take them to court that day and they will have to defend themselves against frivolous charges.

I understand the intent of the legislation is to increase the penalties for animal cruelty offences and to simplify, modernize and fill the gaps in the offence structure of the animal cruelty regime. I am as much opposed as anyone else to animal cruelty. In fact, I am sure anyone in the House and most Canadians would be opposed to any cruelty to animals. It is absolutely shameful and appalling how some people mistreat animals and they must be held accountable. That is what we should be striving for in the bill, not turning our hunters and fishers into criminals.

Without the requested exemptions in Bill C-50, there is considerable legal opinion that the proposed legislation amounts to significant changes to the law which are detrimental to animal use industries, fishers and hunters. On behalf of the residents of Leeds--Grenville, I request that these changes be made before the bill is permitted to proceed any further. With these exemptions included in the bill, I would be happy to stand in my place and support a bill that fights against animal cruelty.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's frankness on his position on this bill. I think members in the House would agree there is no appetite and no tolerance whatsoever for what we all understand generically as cruelty to animals. An animal is defined as a vertebrate except a human being for the purposes of the bill.

The member raised an interesting question about the definitions of “vicious” and “brutal”. Could the member contemplate a scenario where a hunter who has hunted for many years and has a licence could possibly hunt an animal in a way which he would consider to be brutal or vicious? Sometimes if people are drinking or angry or whatever, they might just happen to do something that might be brutal or vicious. It would be difficult to define it, but the facts of each case would have to be on their own merit. I could imagine there could be a case where maybe the animal was wounded or otherwise mutilated, but it was not killed. It could happen.

Is there a way in which we could deal with his concern about viciousness and brutality in a way that he would still want to protect animals?

Mr. Gord Brown

Madam Speaker, the member's question is the very thing that hunting and fishing organizations fear, because it is not clearly defined. I would like the bill sent to committee where we could hear from witnesses and get the answers so we could change the bill so it would no longer be flawed.

The member has raised some good points. The bill plays very much to the fear of being cruel to animals. That needs to be clearly defined. That is the problem with the bill. The sooner we resolve that, I think we would find unanimity among parliamentarians to protect against cruelty to animals.

Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Madam Speaker, I understand the member's concern for the hunting and fishing communities and those who enjoy our wildlife and the sport that wildlife provide. I use the term “sport” because obviously those who are truly sporting are people who treat animals in a humane way.

There may be exceptions to the rule, but clearly this bill is trying to approach those who would in fact take advantage of a situation, as was suggested by my colleague, and would maim animals. That is simply inappropriate.

A question has been raised in the House concerning this bill on which I would like the hon. member's opinion. If someone does something that is considered to be brutal or vicious in the way in which the person kills an animal but the animal dies instantly, does the member think there should be a variation in the way in which that person is treated in relation to that particular situation? An example would be if someone tied a dog to a railroad track and a train came along and killed it instantly. Would he look at it differently if the dog was only maimed by the train and ultimately died later?

Mr. Gord Brown

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question does not have anything to do with what we are talking about.

Right now, fishing and hunting organizations are concerned about the potential for prosecution under this bill. Animal rights groups have said that they will look to this bill, once passed, to cause prosecutions against fishermen and hunters. We need a reasonable debate to discuss this.

As I said before, there is clear unanimity among parliamentarians to put an end to cruelty to animals, but we have to address this before we allow this to tie up our courts for years and cause all kinds of damage to the economy.

I would be happy to take serious questions from members.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to provide some input as a city person. The last speaker somehow assumes that I do not know very much about animals.

However, I am proud to say that a couple years ago I started an outdoor caucus for the Liberal caucus in conjunction with Ontario anglers and hunters. It was an excellent group. I believe there were over 52 members, all who are sport enthusiasts, fishers or hunters of various sorts.

Sporting is an important element of Canadian culture, such as sport shooting and fishing. It is not restricted to the non-urban centres of Canada.

I understand the member is in an area where this is of particular concern. I appreciate he is here representing the issues of his riding. It is interesting that his party has supported the bill twice already, but the member still has a responsibility to make a reasoned argument, and I believe he has done the best that he can.

Of the people who have written to me, I have received input on both sides, but more on the side of why a bill, which is trying to deal with the problem of cruelty to animals, cannot get passed in this place within a reasonable period of time, if we think in the macro context.

The previous speaker has raised one of the questions that perhaps some definitions are unclear and that people who are very much interested in the rules of the game with regard to their activities in terms of sport hunting and fishing are a little concerned that there may be too much latitude and too much breadth in the proposed legislation.

The member will know that there are provisions under the Criminal Code, some of which go back into the 1800s. I think amendments have been made as recently as in the 1950s. However, the important point is there are provisions relating to cruelty to animals such that all of the common law defence is available to those who would be charged of an alleged offence. Therefore, all the tools of any offence under the Criminal Code are available. That is important for the member to know.

The other aspect has to do with the whole question of do we have to define brutality and viciousness. Some members have said that hunters and fishers would never do anything to be cruel to an animal. That would certainly be our wish, but we are talking about human beings. From time to time, there are some fairly horrific circumstances. I am not sure if I had to sit down with the member, whether I could come up with what would constitute viciousness or brutality.

Conceptually it puts us in the ballpark and every circumstance must rest on its own merit. Every one will be different. I am not sure whether we as legislators can somehow put a black and white definition within legislation which would then possibly exclude some aspects.

Members have a right to suggest that if we allow too much latitude to the courts, that latitude may be so broad that it may have unintended consequences. People who never had any thought whatsoever of being cruel to an animal may find themselves in front of the courts. That is problematic. We know the courts are not perfect. We know lawyers are not perfect.

However, we have to rely on the fact that our country is based on the rule of law and the protection of the rights and the freedoms of individuals. If we are not going to respect the courts, if we do not feel that we have the tools, then that raises a whole other problem. It has to do with the confidence in the courts. That is an important question that maybe has not been fully debated yet. I know we have often run nose to nose with not only Supreme Court decisions, but also appeal court decisions and a few others, which create a domino effect and get us into some of these difficulties.

If legislators are starting to believe that, imagine what the public feels. It sees anecdotally some stories about this or that and what happened to that poor person. Not all parliamentarians can serve on the justice committee, hear all the witnesses and deal with all these issues at committee. We therefore second it to our colleagues on that committee to do the work and to ask the right questions. I know all the members on the committee and I am very confident that those members will explore these concerns.

When we go through first and second reading, that is where the concerns should come out. That is when members who are not on the committee or are unsure whether report stage motions will be a place where they have an opportunity to make amendments if they feel there are some, should put those issues on the table, issues that are vitally important to their constituents or to themselves based on their reading, but without having had the benefit the briefings and hearing the witnesses and examination by the members.

It is very easy in this place to talk for or against almost any bill. We can if we make a premise. In this case there are certainly many opportunities to have a premise. Fundamentally, when we talk about cruelty to animals, I think Canadians, regardless of whether they are urban or rural or anything in between, understand that if there is unnecessary pain, if there is something other than what was intended, we need to have a law that covers that. If we look at the United States for instance, its animal cruelty legislation is enacted in each of the individual states.

For example, New York State's agriculture and markets law, chapter 69 of the consolidated law, section 332 to 379 states that an animal includes “every living being except the human being”. That is even broader than we have in the bill. In Bill C-50 an animal is defined as “a vertebrate, other than a human being”. As a member said to me, this takes worms off the hook.

Canada needs to have a law on cruelty to animals. We have had many iterations. We have gone through this for a number of years. There is a great sensitivity to the arguments that have been raised by the anglers and hunters. I want to be absolutely sure that when we ultimately get legislation, and I hope we will, that all parties and stakeholders across the country, including the public at large who are not involved in these kinds of activities, will understand that it is in the best interests of all. It is part of our culture and value system. There has been a significant need to finally bring this into being.

We have to rely on those who are familiar with the law to judge each and every circumstance on its own merit. It would be extremely difficult to define what constitutes brutality and viciousness other than in general terms. However, we know, if we are to respect the law and make laws that will be respected, we have to make every effort to deal with those divergences in terms of the concerns. No matter how we produce these laws, there needs to be some flexibility within the legislation because every case has something a bit different. The laws of Canada are made that way. They have served us well, and the time has come for Bill C-50.

Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Madam Speaker, we are not necessarily opposed to this bill. We are not opposed to a policy aimed at providing animals with more protection against cruelty. We do, however, find that the legitimate activities set out in the bill, such as hunting and fishing, and other activities involving the killing of animals, are not clearly delineated.

Here is my question for my colleague. Given that the bill has been introduced in the House on numerous occasions—we have had C-10 and C-22—would there be some way of reworking it to provide a more detailed definition of what constitutes cruelty toward animals and what constitutes a legitimate activity? This bill is not sufficiently clear on that. A major effort would have to be made on this, to ensure that the bill includes protection for farmers, hunters and others at risk of being charged with an act that would not necessarily constitute animal cruelty. That is my question for my colleague.

Mr. Paul Szabo

Madam Speaker, the member's question is quite important. It gives me an opportunity again to simply say that not all members are on the justice committee. When this bill is dealt with at second reading, we have our vote. I think it has the support of all parties that it would go to committee. The intervention of the member will be on the public record. It is available to committee members. The concerns he has raised either in his speech or in his questions are available for our colleagues on the justice committee to ensure that we have the proper witnesses so we can deal with those sensitivities. A previous speaker was concerned about the lack of clarity and definitions or no definitions at all. If those are possible, we should know that. It is extremely important.

This is second reading. This is where I expect to hear, as a parliamentarian, whether there is some consensus in this place. At second reading, if on first blush people look at it and say that they have heard from enough people, that it causes them concern and that they want the justice committee, as part of its review of the legislation at committee stage, to address those specific questions, then we have to ensure the witnesses are there to deal with those questions. Then when it comes back to this place, the questions of all hon. members will have been addressed in some fashion to bring them to some conclusion, or at least a reason why they have not been addressed. That will give us a better basis on which we can determine whether we care, as individual members not on the committee, to propose report stage motions. That is available to us have if we have not otherwise had an opportunity to influence committee stage amendments. In these matters members have the opportunity to use their best judgment in exercising their votes. This is an important part of the process.

Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC)

Madam Speaker, I would like the opinion of my hon. colleague. I think there is a reason why we have never seen this bill pass over the course of the last number of years. It seems to me there would have to be so many exclusions and exceptions to the bill that we may never get it passed. As the member knows, we live in a very litigious society. I think a lot of people would be somewhat fearful or very fearful of the fact that if the bill is not narrow cast sufficiently, one might be open for legal action. There are many examples. From the agricultural perspective, what would happen if we brand cattle, as an example? What would happen if we kill gophers?

I do not know whether the bill will ever see the light of day. As other members have stated, and I believe we have unanimity, we do not want to see cruelty to animals in the common sense, family pets, for example. No one wants to see a dog, or a cat, or a budgie or anything else cruelly tortured and abused.

I do not know if we can ever get to a point where we narrow cast the legislation sufficiently to allow passage in this place. Would my hon. colleague care to comment on that?