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]

Thursday, November 29, 2001

• 0939

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order the 52nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today we will be considering Bill C-15B, an act to amend the Criminal Code (Cruelty to Animals and Firearms) and the Firearms Act.

• 0940

We are joined by Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, and officials from her department, who she will introduce, as we bring to an end our consideration of this bill. I apologize for the location disruption; that's the reason we're a little bit late starting.

I'll go directly then to the minister.

[Translation]

Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, distinguished members of the committee. I am pleased to have this opportunity today to speak with you about the provisions of Bill C-15B, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.

Before turning to the substance of the Bill, I would like to acknowledge the work that has been undertaken by this committee in its review of Bill C-15B. I appreciate your efforts to advance the debate and understanding of this legislation.

[English]

Turning now to the content of the bill, I would like to focus first on the purpose and effect of the animal cruelty provision.

Mr. Chair, Canadians have voiced their strong views on this issue, and those views have been consistent and clear. After consultations with the public in 1998 on the current cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code, and by virtue of having received petitions with over 10,000 signatures and hundreds of letters a week, it is absolutely clear to me that the vast majority of Canadians want the anti-cruelty laws to be modernized and strengthened. Let me say, Mr. Chair, that on average there is no issue on which I receive more mail in favour of modernizing and strengthening the provisions of these sections of the code. In fact, the amount of mail in favour of reforming these provisions and strengthening them is overwhelming. Some weeks I receive over 300 letters and cards from people demanding that these laws be changed and our laws be modernized to bring them, at least, up to the state of the laws one finds in countries to which we normally compare ourselves, Australia, New Zealand, and many states of the United States of America.

I also note that the governments of both Ontario and Nova Scotia have added their voices to those in Canada who would like to see changes made to the cruelty provisions. In fact, in September the Solicitor General of Ontario, David Turnbull, publicly demanded that I move quickly in relation to the modernization and strengthening of these provisions. He has had to deal with some profoundly disturbing incidents of animal cruelty in the province of Ontario, and he believes these laws, as presently constructed, do not reflect the values of the vast majority of Ontarians and Canadians.

In my remarks today I would like to clarify the intention of the cruelty provisions in Bill C-15B and also speak to what is not covered by the amendments.

By creating a separate part of the Criminal Code for the cruelty provision, Bill C-15B clarifies that while animals can be used for a variety of purposes to satisfy human needs, they should be treated humanely and not be subject to unnecessary suffering. I understand that not a single witness has come forward to argue that this policy should be changed. It has been the intent of the law since 1953. Let me be clear, cruelty to animals is the wilful or reckless causing of pain, suffering, or injury to animals when such pain, suffering, or injury is not necessary in furtherance of a legitimate objective. This has been the concept of cruelty that has been used for over 50 years, and it has been preserved in Bill C-15B.

• 0945

The way society traditionally recognizes the seriousness of particular conduct is through the penalty that is prescribed for that conduct. Bill C-15B will substantially increase the penalty for intentional cruelty by making the offence a hybrid offence—this is in keeping with much of our work in the reform of the criminal law—and by raising the maximum penalty for a summary conviction offence to 18 months and for an indictable offence to five years. We will be proposing an amendment for consideration by this committee that would permit the imposition of a fine of up to $5,000 for summary conviction proceedings under proposed section 182.3 and of up to $10,000 for summary conviction proceedings under proposed section 182.2. This flexibility will permit the crown to tailor the penalty to the circumstances of the particular case and send the signal to judges, prosecutors, and the general public that cruelty offences are serious cases of violence and should be treated accordingly. I understand, Mr. Chair, that witnesses who have come before this committee support an increase in penalties.

In the course of your consideration of Bill C-15B you may have heard it said that there is no need to change the current provisions of the code beyond raising the penalties. This argument ignores the anachronisms and unnecessary complexities of the current law. In some of the current animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code the proprietary status of an animal determines whether or not a successful prosecution can be brought, even though the basic policy of the cruelty provisions is to protect all animals from intentional cruelty and criminal neglect.

I would like to turn now to several examples of how Bill C-15B helps to simplify the current law. It appears that paragraph 446(1)(a) of the Criminal Code is restricted to the wilful infliction of unnecessary pain, suffering, or injury. This provision, however, must be read in conjunction with subsection 429(1), which states that wilfully includes recklessly. Further, it is only through reading subsection 446(3) that it is clear that paragraph 446(1)(a) actually creates two offences. You can see the complexity here. So, colleagues, understand that when you read these sections together, what you've got is two offences, one of intentional cruelty, the other of causing unnecessary pain, suffering, or injury through wilful neglect.

Bill C-15B rids the law of these complexities and anachronisms and clearly sets out two main categories of offences, intentional acts of cruelty and those acts that cause pain, suffering, or injury to animals by reason of criminal negligence. Those are the two offences that are clearly being set out. This means that a person who loves their animals, but has too many and fails to keep them well fed and healthy, commits a different kind of offence from the person who intentionally causes an animal to suffer—and we all know too many shocking examples of both. For absolute clarity, we will bringing forward a motion for consideration by this committee that would add the word “negligently” before “fails to provide suitable and adequate food” in proposed paragraph 182.3(1)(b).

Another objective of Bill C-15B is to fill a gap in the law. At the present time a person who has a lawful purpose for killing an animal, but does so brutally or viciously, cannot be charged with cruelty unless they also cause unnecessary pain, suffering, or injury to the animal. In fact, judges in my own province of Alberta have flagged this as a gap in the law and have commented on their inability to convict in circumstances where there is a clear acknowledgement that conduct is such as is condemned by society because of this gap in the law.

Bill C-15B creates a new offence of intentionally killing an animal brutally or viciously, whether or not the animal suffers pain. For example, such conduct could include tying an animal to a railroad track, fastening an explosive device to an animal, or putting an animal in a microwave oven, all examples, ladies and gentlemen, of things that have happened. There's another horrible example this morning in the pages of our papers in this country. I would hope that everybody stands and condemns that kind of conduct and makes sure we have laws in this country to convict those who would act in such morally reprehensible ways.

• 0950

This brings me to a discussion of what is not covered by the changes proposed in Bill C-15B. I know it has been suggested to you by some witnesses that removal of the cruelty offences from the special property provisions of the code will have the unintended effect of eliminating protections currently available to hunters, farmers, researchers, and trappers. I want to reassure the members of this committee that this is simply not the case. Although I expect we will get into this in more detail during the question and answer session, I would like to clarify that contrary to what some witnesses have indicated to you, subsection 429(2) of the code does not operate to effectively exempt industry practices from the cruelty provision. That has never been the law. This position is premised on the mistaken assumption that if the defences in subsection 429(2) did not exist, industry would be guilty of committing cruelty offences. I think it is important to address this concern by looking carefully at what must be proven before a cruelty offence has been committed.

The cumulative effect of common custom, common law, and the existence of federal, provincial, and territorial laws governing animal use in different contexts concludes that the use of animals in research and industry is, without question, lawful in this country and will continue to be so. An offence of intentional cruelty, for example, is not even made up unless the prosecutor can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the method used to achieve the lawful purpose caused pain that was avoidable, having regard to economical, accessible alternative methods.

The issue of defences only arises once the offence has been proven. To my knowledge, the defences in subsection 429(2) have never been successfully advanced to excuse the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering. In fact, as a practical matter, these defences would be limited to exceptional circumstances. They might include duress or necessity, both of which are available as defences at common law and are preserved by subsection 8(3) of the Criminal Code.

The issue of colour of right might arise only if the accused genuinely thought, for example, that his or her conduct caused the least amount of pain, when in fact it did not. Colour of right is a particular type of mistake of fact. Mistake of fact defences are preserved by subsection 8(3) of the Criminal Code. This view was reinforced, I believe, by the testimony of Madam Heather Perkins-McVey, who gave evidence on behalf of the Criminal Lawyers Association and stated that it was the view of their members that moving the cruelty provisions out of Part IX of the Criminal Code was appropriate and that no defences were lost to accused persons by this move.

The bottom line on this issue is that we have looked at these provisions very carefully, and I can reassure committee members that the cruelty to animals provisions have not in the past targeted and will not in the future target persons engaged in well-recognized humane industry practices. In fact, we will be proposing an amendment for consideration by this committee that would confirm that the defences currently available under subsection 8(3) of the Criminal Code will continue to apply.

Some committee members have been concerned that the definition of animal in Bill C-15B broadens its protection to animals that are not now covered by the cruelty provision. As honourable members are probably aware, there is no definition in the current scheme, and so arguably, the extremely broad dictionary definition can be used. Bill C-15B proposes to impose a burden on the crown to show as a matter of scientific evidence, thereby narrowing the scope of the existing law, beyond a reasonable doubt, that where an invertebrate is involved, it must have the capacity to feel pain. There's no such requirement in the existing law.

• 0955

This definition is entirely consistent with the policy of the law and also with an objective scientific approach to defining the creatures covered by the new regime. I remind members of this committee, as Dr. Clément Gauthier, who is executive director of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, indicated in his testimony on October 16, the current definition of animal in Bill C-15B is the operational definition of animal used by the Canadian Council on Animal Care. I would point, colleagues, to the fact that there are a wide number of definitions of animal used in our own country and around the world, and I point to my own province, where they have a very broad definition of animal for the purposes of their provincial regulatory laws. What we have decided to do, as many provinces and other countries have decided, is to include a definition of animal for the purposes of the law, thereby clarifying it and bringing greater certainty to the subject matter of these provisions.

In concluding my remarks about the cruelty to animals amendment, I would like to emphasize that a greater societal interest is achieved by treating cruelty to animals more seriously. As Ms. Perkins-McVey indicated in her testimony, there is increasing scientific evidence that shows a correlation between animal cruelty and subsequent violence against humans. Questionnaires administered to battered women in shelters revealed that about 75% of them who had pets in their home reported that their aggressor had also injured or killed one or more pets.

Animal abuse can also have a devastating psychological impact on children who are forced to witness brutality to the animals they love. I had the opportunity in the city of Calgary recently to meet the family that lost some of their horses through outrageous acts of cruelty. It was an act of singular courage for the two children to come with their mother to the event I attended, and they were expressing their support, their very strong support. Although these people live on a farm and understand full well the nature of the agricultural industry, they also understand full well the devastating psychological effect the loss of animals can have on a family when those animals are taken from them by these kinds of horrendous acts. Our judges, health professionals, and law enforcement officers have recognized and have addressed animal abuse as an aspect of a bigger problem of violence in our society. Bill C-15B gives all the opportunities to do the same.

I would like to speak now to the proposed administrative amendments to revitalize the Canadian firearms program. This program is a common sense approach to gun safety. Licensing and registration help keep firearms from those who should not have them, while encouraging safe and responsible gun use.

I am pleased to report that the licensing phase of the program has been a success, with a very high compliance rate of approximately 91%. Eligible firearms owners who applied by the deadline should now have their firearms licences. Those applications that needed follow-up because of incomplete forms or require further review for public safety reasons continue to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, while ensuring that our safety objectives are met.

This national investment in public safety is a success. Enhanced screening of firearms licence applicants and continual eligibility screening of licence-holders is leading to safer homes and communities by keeping firearms from those who pose a risk to themselves or others. Since December 1, 1998, over 4,000 licences have been refused or revoked by public safety authorities. The number of revocations is thirty-two times higher than the total of the previous five years under the old program.

Canadians understand these public safety benefits and continue to show overwhelming support for the firearms program. In a national survey of 2,035 Canadians conducted in April 2001 by the Environics Research Group 77% of Canadians support the principles upon which the Canadian firearms control program is based. This number includes a clear majority in every region and province and a clear majority of supporters of every political party represented in the House of Commons. Further, this survey found that two-thirds of Canadians living in communities of 5,000 people or smaller support these principles. These findings are consistent with Gallup Poll results released earlier this week, which indicate that support for the registry—the specific question was asked by Gallup—is at its highest level since 1995, and 76% of Canadians support mandatory registration of all firearms. That support is at 90% in the province of Quebec. It is at 80% in the province of Ontario.

• 1000

As this committee has heard, the law enforcement community, including the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, also remain supportive of this program, because of its essential crime-fighting tools.

With the success of the licensing phase well in hand, we are now turning to the next phase of this important public safety program, the registration of firearms by January 1, 2003. On a region-by-region basis, licensed firearm owners are receiving a personalized registration form in the mail offering a limited time to register their firearms without charge. Another new feature is an on-line firearm registration process. To date the response to these initiatives has been encouraging. We've learned from the licensing experience and have listened to the concerns of gun owners and other Canadians about program efficiency and client service. We are responding by putting forth administrative changes that will facilitate compliance with the program and continue to ensure a high level of service to clients.

Let me say that we have a users group, and it has appeared before the committee. That is a group of individuals who represent all aspects of the firearms community, and they have been very instrumental in helping us draft the package of amendments you have before you. If Mr. Torino was here and appeared, you will have heard from him that these amendments are all things the firearms owning community has been requesting. There may be some who remain opposed to the program, but putting that to one side, these are all things that have been requested and in no way undermine our public safety goals, but they are things that will make this program more user-friendly and will facilitate the ability of those who are legitimate gun owners to comply with the law. I want to publicly thank at this time the users group for its ongoing support of what we're doing and the detailed study they continue to provide on how this program is being implemented and how, by ensuring very high public safety standards, we are able to help users in relation to this program.

As I've said, we're not changing the basic policy goals of the program, such as the firearms registration deadline of January 1, 2003, nor the government's clearly stated commitment to public safety. These administrative changes allow us to simplify processes and requirements for firearms owners. At the same time, they will strengthen the program's contribution to public safety. Client service and efficiency will be enhanced with a more streamlined system. This includes simplifying firearm licence renewals and the registration process. Free processing of visitors bringing guns into Canada will also make the border process more efficient, an issue of which we are all seized these days, in its many facets.

We will improve efficiency and reduce costs by staggering firearms licence renewals, to avoid a surge of applications in five-year cycles, and balance the workload associated with the program. We will also improve the day-to-day administration of the firearms program by ensuring more direct accountability. We will achieve this by consolidating the statutory authority for all operations under a Canadian firearms commissioner, who will report directly to the Minister of Justice.

Other amendments will allow us to enhance border controls when it comes to firearm imports and exports and meet our commitments under international agreements. This includes the recently finalized UN firearms protocol, which supports Canadian policy and will be an additional tool in helping curb the illegal trafficking of firearms.

We have listened carefully to the views of the various individuals and organizations that appeared before this committee, and I am confident that many of the issues raised can be addressed when you hear from officials at the clause-by-clause examination of the bill. With the amendments I have discussed today and ongoing collaboration with our partners and stakeholders, we will continue to ensure a fair balance between the interests of responsible firearm owners and our shared objective of public safety.

• 1005

So, ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, what we are doing here is ensuring, as it relates to animal cruelty, that the provisions of the Criminal Code reflect current Canadian values. What we're doing with the firearms amendments is ensuring that we have a program that reflects Canadian values, but is also as efficient and as effective as possible for those who use the system, without sacrificing public safety. I would commend both these areas to you. They both have strong public support, and I think both speak to ensuring that we have laws that ultimately reflect Canadian values.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

I go to Mr. Toews for seven minutes.

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

I'm not going to get into the issue of the firearms registry. I think it's clear that the registry has been a dismal failure. This government promised that this registry would cost the taxpayers of Canada $85 million. They indicated that they would abandon the registry at $150 million. We've now learned that the registry has cost taxpayers $685 million, with no appreciable benefit to issues of public safety. Last year the government estimated that the cost of the gun registry would be $35 million. In fact, the administration is so dismal that they underestimated costs by $114 million; the total cost is $149 million.

The government may have this money to throw around for a gun registry and for public relations purposes. In my communities, southeast Manitoba, and right across the prairies, where we rely on RCMP officers, we know what the government has been doing. They've been cutting services. There have been chronic shortages of RCMP officers. There have been diversions of RCMP officers for work in the gun registry. Our officers aren't there to serve the public. This is a government that had to shut down training in Regina of RCMP officers in order to funnel more money into a gun registry.

Again, I would say that 100% of Canadians support legitimate gun control. No one here argues with that. But what the government continually does in respect of polling is clearly send out misleading questions, misinformation, in order to make sure that their numbers are skewed in favour of a program that is a dismal failure, that law enforcement officers, who I talk to constantly, recognize is simply sucking resources out of front-line policing and into an administration system that is destroying policing, especially in rural areas.

It's not enough that they've destroyed the hunting industry in my riding, the duck hunting industry, tourism is being destroyed by this registry. People are discouraged.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, Mr. Toews has his seven minutes—

Mr. Vic Toews: If this is a point of order—

Mr. Paul DeVillers: —and he can spend it any way he wishes, but he doesn't need to insult our intelligence by saying he's not going to get into it, and then spend seven minutes talking about it.

Mr. Vic Toews: All I want to say is that the minister gave us a speech that had nothing to do with reality. I'm giving a speech that is putting the facts on the table.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: And that's your prerogative. Just don't insult us by saying you're not going to talk about gun registry.

Mr. Vic Toews: Mr. Chair, I didn't interrupt him, and I would appreciate that he not interrupt my seven minutes.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Don't insult us.

Mr. Vic Toews: I only get seven minutes here and he interrupted it.

The evidence we've heard on the animal legislation is not consistent with what the minister has said. Ms. McVey's evidence was that the defences in section 429 were implicit in the new section and that she, in fact, had no objection to making it explicit. That was her direct testimony. That's not what the minister has summarized here today.

• 1010

The minister has indicated that what is lawful today in the course of legitimate activities would be lawful when the bill receives royal assent. Yet we've had witness after witness, and Dr. Clément Gauthier, who she quoted, indicated his concerns:

The removal of the lawful excuse defences means that the purposes of the experimentation must be justified in relation to the criteria in the offence provision only, and the legitimacy of the experimental activity or its purpose beyond the context of the criminal provisions may not provide defence.

Mr. Robert Giroux, President, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, again, expressed his concerns about the lack of precision in the bill. He lists a number of terms.

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

Dr. Andrew Tasker indicates the same concerns. We see this consistently with learned individuals who are concerned about medical research, who are concerned about the legitimate use of animals.

This minister, who promised, along with this government, that the gun registry would not cost more than $85 million, while it's now cost $685 million, is now giving other assurances and saying, trust us, it's implicit in the legislation. I'm asking the minister whether she will make those defences explicit in the way Ms. McVey indicated she had no objection to.

Furthermore, contrary to the indications that were stated here today, the animal rights activists have a clear desire to push this agenda to prosecute. We know their agenda, it's written all over the websites and the like. Will she at least protect farmers, medical researchers, and others from these frivolous, unwarranted prosecutions by ensuring that no prosecution under these sections can be initiated without the consent of provincial attorneys general? This is a standard practice in many Criminal Code provisions where there are new Criminal Code provisions where the impact is not known. I'm assuming for the purposes of her debate and her discussion that she is genuine about this. If she is genuine, will she genuinely protect my farmers, medical researchers, and others who legitimately use animals in the best interests of Canadians?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews. You've got your seven minutes plus.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Mr. Chair, I obviously could spend the rest of my time here this morning responding to Mr. Toews' series of assertions and questions, but let me say first that as I understand it, both the chiefs of police and the CPA were before this committee. Both of them made very plain their ongoing support for gun licensing and registration. In fact, I want to reassure members of this committee, as I have in the past, that this program has generally freed up police resources. In fact, the police are not doing the kinds of administrative tasks they were doing under our existing gun control legislation. Also, where police time is taken, we provide the police with direct funding, some $30 million a year across the country. Generally, we have freed up police time, because they're not doing the kinds of things in most communities across this country they used to be doing in relation to the gun licensing program.

• 1015

I appreciate the ongoing support of both the chiefs and the CPA, because these are the people who are on the front lines and they understand the absolutely devastating effect of guns if those guns fall into the hands of the wrong people.

I'm not going to say much more. I see Mr. Toews has left, so I guess, in a way, I feel liberated from having to respond. I do want to, however, clarify that in relation to what Madam McVey said, I did not speak to anything she said about clarification. What I said, and it's absolutely accurate, was that her professional view was that no defences were lost to accused persons. That's what she said. Whether you want to talk about further clarification or not is a different issue. But she was, as I understand it, absolutely clear that in her opinion, as a lawyer representing the CBA, no defences were lost to accused persons. In fact, as I've already indicated this morning, we are proposing an amendment—my parliamentary secretary will be taking that in hand next week when you do clause-by-clause—that will confirm that the defences currently available under subsection 8(3) of the Criminal Code will continue to apply.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister. I would remind members that the rules of the House apply here with regard to the presence or absence of our colleagues. Before someone else reminds me, I will remind you.

I go to Mr. Lanctôt for seven minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will start with the amendments to the Criminal Code that deal with cruelty to animals. Let me tell you, first of all, that we support the changes that are being proposed in the new part V.I in contrast with the provisions that were found in part XI. I believe that it is high time that we bring about these changes so that animals will not be considered as goods anymore under the law, but rather as what they are, animals. They are not personal property, and I believe that it is a step forward to recognize that such is the case. For our part, we support that change.

However, Ms. McVey of the Criminal Lawyers Association appeared before the committee and told us that she could not guarantee what the minister is saying, namely that the defense rights that existed and that still exist under subsection 429(2) could apply implicitly. She thought that was the case, but she could not guarantee it.

On the other hand, during her testimony before this committee, she said that she recognized that it would not diminish in any way the protection against cruelty to animals to add explicitly the defense rights provided for in subsection 429(2), dealing with “legal excuse” and “colour of right”. It would not diminish in any way the scope of the bill. On the contrary, it would add something: the people who have concerns—farmers, hunters, trappers or scientists—in spite of the amendment being added in section 8 of the bill, would feel more secure.

You know as well as I do that these defense rights are applied in a very restrictive way. The evidence must be very specific. You cannot argue that there is “colour of right” simply by saying that you believed you had the right to do something. No, there are well established standards. So it would be a plus and I do believe that the Criminal Lawyers Association has recognized this through Ms. McVey.

For my part, I agree with that position. I also think that the opposition agrees. Even ministerial members of this committee, who are members of your government, support the provision of such an addition that would protect farmers, hunters and anybody having anything to do with that sport, as well as scientists.

So I do not see how one could object to adding such a specific amendment to this bill, an amendment that would represent a great step forward. If not, we will not have any choice; we will not be able to vote in favor of such a bill if these defense rights are not protected.

I believe that all parties can be winners: the people who want to protect animals against cruelty will be satisfied with the provisions of the Criminal Code, and all those who do this to earn a living or for entertainment. One should not go beyond—

Do I still have a lot of time?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you.

Let us turn now to firearms. It is well known that you had the support of Quebec, without which, in my view, that legislation would never have been passed. You said that 90% of people in Quebec agree with the firearms legislation. As you know, that support is based on a certain event that took place in Montreal. So, in Quebec, people really want to say yes to that legislation whose aim is to protect people, I mean the Firearms Act.

• 1020

However, I find it unbelievable that Quebec has been used—and I carefully choose my word when I say “used”—when they decided that from now on they will assume full responsibility for processing and issuing licenses, for all requests, transfers and so on. All of this was the responsibility of the chief firearms officer of Quebec. Now, with this bill, you are removing all these responsibilities having to do with licences and transferring them to the commissioner or a registrar.

So the problem we are faced with is that, obviously and unfortunately, you have once more prepared an omnibus bill that we might be forced to vote against, even if amendments are introduced concerning the protection of animals. We might vote against that bill, not because of what it contains on animal protection, but in part because of that amendment that you call an administrative one.

It is not merely administrative. You will as well cut off all the necessary amounts and all the control that Quebec could have. At the present time, all of this is working well in Quebec: the issuing and the transfer of licences. We have acquired some expertise and you now want to give away all of this to a federal agency or to other parties and start from scratch.

I believe that there is something to be done in that bill in order to clearly allow Quebec to continue to give these powers to the chief firearms officer.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt.

[English]

Madam Minister.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I thank the honourable member for his comments. Let me first say that I believe, with the proposed amendment in relation to subsection 8(3) for greater certainty, nothing could be clearer than that all common law defences that exist are available under subsection 8(3). That's why we're including that, for greater certainty, and hopefully, that will deal with the legitimate issue of concern that has been raised.

In relation to firearms, I'm going to have Gary Webster deal with this. Let me assure you that we at the federal level appreciate not only the strong support of the people of Quebec, but also the strong support of the Government of Quebec in administering the firearms program in their jurisdiction. And it is not our intention to interfere with the core responsibilities of the CFO, those remain.

However, we are streamlining this legislation, in part because of the cost. Clearly, we have heard, and I think Quebeckers share the concern, that they want an efficient program, where we are using technology, for example, to the greatest extent possible, so we do not have a situation where there are administrative inefficiencies in the law that add to that cost. So what we want to do is streamline. Nobody ever proposed that, for example, as technology improved, we would not be making changes to the program to avail ourselves of that technology, and in some cases that might speak to the various functions that are performed by various actors, be it CFOs or others, including the minister.

I think what I'll do is ask Mr. Webster to clarify for you what relates to CFOs and the creation of the position of a commissioner who will report directly to me to ensure the highest degree of political accountability for this program possible.

I did speak to the Minister of Public Security yesterday at our federal provincial territorial meeting, Monsieur Ménard, and I have asked my deputy to follow up with his deputy Monsieur Ménard's concerns in relation to this issue. He raised them directly with me. We have some time over the next few days to discuss concerns with him directly, and we will see early next week what the upshot of those discussions has been.

But I want to reassure everyone, including you, as a representative from the province of Quebec, that our intention is to streamline this process, to make it efficient and cost-effective, but CFOs will continue to be absolutely crucial for the successful administration and management of this program.

Gary, do you want to add some things to that?

• 1025

Mr. Gary Webster (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Firearms Centre): I have just a couple of small points. The results you see in the form of amendments today are the result of consultations with the chief firearms officers from across the country, including Quebec. Issues were raised by all CFOs across the country with respect to some of these issues, and those discussions were undertaken as necessary through the course of that consultation process.

The basic and essential authority of the CFOs in respect of the amendments is essentially retained with respect to any of the issues concerning public safety within each of the provincial jurisdictions. For example, the registrar, under the amendments, does take on new responsibilities, but any disputes or concerns raised with respect to public safety or any evidence that comes out through background checks or any concerns about public safety with respect to a licence or a registration are immediately turned back to the provincial CFO, and it's the provincial CFO's responsibility at that point to confirm or eradicate any issues that may have been raised. So even with many of the changes that have been made or are suggested within the amendments, there still is a requirement for the federal registrar to seek the advice and support of the provincial CFO.

I think I would leave it there for that particular clarification.

The Chair: Now we go to Mr. Myers for seven minutes.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to thank the minister for appearing and the two other witnesses.

I don't want to talk, Mr. Chairman, about firearms either. I really don't want to get into that.

The Chair: Then don't.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I don't want to have to respond, for example, to Mr. Toews' outburst in respect of his misinformation and his misconstrued facts, perhaps except to say—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we've had Mr. DeVillers accuse us of being insulting to other members and the minister, and now we have this tirade coming from Lynn Myers. I'd ask for a withdrawal of both Mr. DeVillers' remarks and what Mr. Lynn Myers just said.

The Chair: It's short of a tirade, but I would ask Mr. Myers to get to the subject at hand.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: With the kind of action taken in a parliamentary committee, insulting another party, I don't think that's appropriate behaviour on your part, Paul, and I think the sooner we get back to doing business the way it's supposed to be done—

The Chair: Mr. Hilstrom, Mr. Myers has the floor. Let's try to continue with the collegial nature this committee generally exhibits.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's very collegial. I just want to make the point that sometimes when you're painted in a very small corner, and that corner's getting smaller, you tend to react accordingly, and when you're fighting a losing battle, and it's a wrong one to boot, that's when you see the outbursts we saw previously.

But, Madam Minister, there is a price to pay for safety and security, to protect from spousal assault, for example, to protect our children with respect to guns and their access, to protect our police officers when they go into a very tricky situation, a situation where guns could be used in the inappropriate way we often see they are, to reduce the likelihood of the incident at the École Polytechnique in Montreal and other things that have occurred in the past, to make sure guns coming in from the United States.... So there is a price to pay. I think we should be proud, as a country, that we are able to have the resources to make sure safety is provided for in a manner consistent with the great values of Canada.

Mr. Chairman, as I said, I don't want to get into that. What I rather wanted to get into—

The Chair: Then don't.

Mr. Lynn Myers: —is the whole issue of cruelty to animals.

I wanted to take to you this point. Back in the spring of this year there was an Ipsos-Reid poll done where Canadian farmers were highlighted, and more to the point, people were asked about their level of trust with respect to Canadian farmers not only producing safe, secure food, which we know is the case in Canada, but also treating their animals well and with the kind of treatment we would expect any animal to be given. The Ipsos-Reid poll came back, and approximately 83% of Canadians felt that in fact was the case.

• 1030

The reason I point that out to you is that farmers and medical researchers and people in the fur industry and trapping, hunting, fishing, etc. correctly want to carry on their way of doing things—I think that's an appropriate assessment. I noted, for example, and I've made you aware of this, that back in 1987, in the Law Reform Commission of Canada Report 31, Recodifying Criminal Law, on page 98, they actually talked about the exemptions. I just want to read them for the record:

For the purpose of clause 20(1), no injury or serious physical pain is caused unnecessarily if it is a reasonably necessary means of achieving any of the following purposes:

(a) identification, medical treatment, spaying or neutering;

(b) provision of food or other animal products;

(c) hunting, trapping, fishing, and other sporting activities conducted in accordance with lawful rules related to them;

(d) pest, predator or disease control;

(e) protection of persons or property;

(f) scientific research unless the risk of injury or serious physical pain is disproportionate to the benefit expected from the research;

(g) disciplining or training of an animal.

It seems to me that captures pretty much what farmers and medical researchers and trappers and fishers and others would want to see, that they can carry on their normal practice.

So my question is really a simple one. Will the amendment you're proposing, with that list, and presumably other things that are considered to be normal codes of practice, normal ways of carrying on and conducting business, normal ways of doing whatever farmers and medical researchers and fishers and trappers and everyone else who is concerned about this do, alleviate those concerns?

Ms. Anne McLellan: As I have said, Mr. Myers, in response to some I have met with—you, the poultry association, and others—this law will not interfere with the lawful practices of those who carry on a business, be they poultry producers, other agricultural producers, trappers, or hunters. That is not the intention of this law, and I reassured the people I've met with, including those I've met with you, that I would put on the record what the intention of these amendments is.

As I say, I am this morning willing to indicate that we will specifically include reference, for greater certainty, to subsection 8(3), which refers to any common law defence or justification—nothing could be clearer. Also, we will add the word “negligently” to one of these offences to ensure that again, one is targeting conduct that is appropriate, that one is not sweeping up unintentionally those who act in ways that are not negligent. So I think, with those amendments, the intention should be absolutely clear.

The other intention relates—and I've commented on this before-to the fact that we are falling behind the rest of the world. The rest of the world does research, the rest of the world has agricultural industries. Australia does, the United States, most of the states of the union. In fact, our animal cruelty provisions are well behind reform in the law, even behind the regulatory reform in law that has taken place in some of our provinces. And Canadians are simply telling us this is unacceptable.

On the other side, of course, there are legitimate interests, and what we are doing is protecting those legitimate interests. We have made that plain, and I think the amendments this morning further clarify that.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I have a quick observation.

The Chair: There are people waiting on this side, My Myers.

Mr. Sorenson, three minutes.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would also like to thank the minister for coming today; we appreciate your presence.

I think it was Dickens who said “it was the best of times, it was the worst of times”, and I guess around here I'm waiting for the best of times, because when we see legislation like this, we see the worst of times, we see the worst of legislation.

I'd also preface my comments by talking very briefly about Bill C-68. We have never seen legislation that has been worse than Bill C-68. Never have we seen legislation that has been more divisive than Bill C-68. Never have we seen legislation that has pitted urban against rural like Bill C-68. Never have we seen legislation that, as has already been mentioned, was going to cost $80 million ending up costing $685 million. Never have we seen a bigger flop. We've heard the tirade from another member who believes we need it to help solve crime. It won't help solve crime, it's a disaster.

• 1035

That being said, I'll now say that this bill, Bill C-15B, also accomplishes the very same things. It accomplishes pitting rural against urban. It accomplishes a huge distrust in government. Farmers who own animals abhor cruelty, they abhor those who mistreat the animals. Bill C-15B goes far beyond the necessary steps to ensure that criminal misuse of animals is punished. We would love to see those who genuinely misuse and mistreat animals punished in a more severe way, but these amendments appear to be a step towards doing something different. They're a step towards elevating the status of an animal by emphasizing the animal's rights and assigning almost human attributes to some of these, as we take them out of the property section. It goes far beyond what you've suggested today is dealing with cruelty to animals. The definition of animals is so broad that it will extend legal protection to any animal that has the capacity to feel pain. It will put great question into the genuine practices that happen on the farm and on the ranch. Some animal rights groups, for certain, will use this legislation as a basis for inappropriate prosecutions.

To the minister I would say this. We have heard witnesses. We have heard individuals who have come forward who have said things like this, not at our table, but outside this room. They have said:

This legislation is just a beginning. 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, make no mistake about it.

That was a quote from Liz White, who we heard here as a witness. They say, it's up to us to bring prosecutions against the ranching industry, it's up to us to push the limits, and make no mistake, Minister, they will do that. They have absolutely raised a huge fear on the ranches in my riding and throughout western Canada.

The Chair: Is there a question?

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: My question would be, although you have said the practices of ranching and farming will be excepted, when you hear extremists say, we have the facilities to push prosecutions, what can you tell the farmer who is struggling to make a go of it, struggling with a small margin, with no profits in some instances, what assurances can you give them that a drawn-out lawsuit they cannot afford will not happen?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Has it happened under the existing law, Mr. Sorenson?

The Chairman: I would ask the minister not to put questions back when the three minutes are over.

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: I would answer that.

Ms. Anne McLellan: People need to look. Anybody can throw out radical speculation as to what may or may not happen, but I think it's important to look at how the existing law has been dealt with. In fact, as I have already indicated in response to Mr. Myers, those practices that are lawful today continue to be lawful.

Mr. Sorenson raises the question of the definition. I find it interesting that in Mr. Sorenson's and my own home province of Alberta their definition is one that says “does not include a human being”. In fact, it's an incredibly broad definition, and I do not see that the ranching industry has been brought to its knees, or the medical research community, in the province of Alberta.

There is a wide variety of definitions. In fact, we're defining animal for the first time. I think it's fair to say we are bringing greater certainty to the law, because without that definition, one could make an argument that anything.... What is a standard by which you include something that is covered by this legislation? So in fact, our definition is going some distance to bringing certainty to this law on behalf of everybody.

I try not to involve myself in scaremongering, because that's irresponsible, and we owe more to the Canadian public than that. I have been—

Mr. Kevin Sorenson: But they're scared.

Ms. Anne McLellan: —absolutely clear that practices that are lawful continue to be lawful under this law. We will be very happy, as I said, to amend this to ensure that everybody is clear. Subsection 8(3) couldn't be clearer:

Every rule and principle of the common law that renders any circumstance a justification or excuse for an act or a defence...continues....

Nothing could be clearer.

• 1040

I would hope that reassures those who have any concern in relation to what they describe as existing defences, although there is profound misunderstanding, as I pointed out in my comments, as to how those sections actually work.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Cotler for three minutes.

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Minister, I've received representations from members of the Jewish community and members of the Muslim community who have expressed concern to me that for example, the practice of ritual slaughter related to the laws of Kashrut in the Jewish tradition and the related Muslim practices of halal might be prejudiced, if not targeted, by this legislation. I've read the legislation, and your submission this morning would, for me, alleviate those concerns, but I think it might be important to put it on the record, so that one can appreciate that in fact, these practices will be protected.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

Madam Minister.

Ms. Anne McLellan: This is an important issue, and one, as Mr. Cotler has indicated, that has been brought to our attention by members of various communities. I want to reassure everyone this morning that as I have said throughout to those who have addressed this issue with me in the various communities, there is nothing in this legislation that interferes with what one can describe under a rough definition or phrase of ritualistic killing. I just want to be absolutely clear that these practices are carried out presently, and there is nothing in this law that would interfere with the ability of, for example, the Jewish community or the Muslim community to continue those customary rituals.

Would you like to say something about that?

The Chair: Ms. Markham.

Ms. Karen Markham (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice Canada): I don't really have anything to add to what the minister was saying on that particular point, except to emphasize that the tests for liability under the animal cruelty provisions remain the same, and there is no reason to believe that without a change in liability test, there is going to be a problem.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I would like to believe you, but I'm not the only one to have reservations. Many groups who appeared before us said that they had sought legal advice.

I have a concern. Why? Because even though I congratulate you for the amendment that you are proposing to make to the Criminal Code through section 8 of the Bill, which already contains a clarification by providing defense rights under the common law, I am wondering why there is an additional clarification in subsection 429(2). The legislator does not intervene for no reason. If something has been added, it is because some provisions were not clear. It is in 429(2).

I put the question to you: why are you reluctant to simply add “without legal justification or excuse and colour of right” in proposed subsection 182.2(1), in the preamble as well as in subsection 182.3(1)? In both preambles, you would only have to add something. Already, you are adding the provisions that are proposed in section 8 of the bill as a protection. This would not diminish anything. It will protect and give a sense of security to all involved simply by adding “negligently” and “without legal justification or excuse and colour of right”. You have already added “negligently” in proposed paragraph 182.3 (1)b). That is perfect. But there is not only “negligently”. If you add that to the proposed amendment in section 8, everybody will be happy. I do not understand why it would not be put in. That's my first point.

My second point deals with the definition. I heard from virtually all witnesses exactly the same thing that the officials responsible for the file and even the police officers told us. What they do is important, but the problem mostly arises from the lack of resources. Now, when you are adding to the definition “and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain”, that is good in principle and I cannot argue against that, but how will you implement that? You will need evidence established by experts and you will have to add to the funding, not only for the defense, but for the Crown as well. The Crown will have to establish the facts.

Already, we do not have the resources that would be required to establish whether the existing act was sufficient to protect animals against cruelty. The required amounts were not even available and you are adding something that is even more difficult in order to pursue your goal, which is to protect the animals. That is my second point.

• 1045

Here is the third one. When you talk about streamlining the Firearms Act, you are telling me that the chief firearms officers will keep their powers. That is completely false. I don't know if Mr. Webster will be appointed commissioner, but who will hold the powers? It's as simple as that. Will it be the commissioner, the registrar or, for the issuing of licences and so on, the chief firearms officer? Could you answer that, please?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt.

[English]

Madam Minister.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I'm going to have Madam Markham respond to the first point by Monsieur Lanctôt, and then I will have Mr. Webster discuss again the issues on chief firearms officers.

Ms. Karen Markham: For my own clarification, I'm understanding that your suggestion is to write the defences in subsection 429(2) into the chapeau of the substantive offences. Am I correct in that understanding?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Okay. Here is what I want added to the preamble of the proposed subsection 182.2(1): “and without legal justification or excuse and colour of right”. And I would like the same thing to be added to the preamble of proposed subsection 182.3(1): “and without legal justification or excuse and colour of right”.

[English]

Ms. Karen Markham: I understand, and thank you for the clarification.

The difficulty is that if these excuses are written into the chapeau of the offence, we are at very high risk of creating a substantive change in the law for the following reasons. Subsection 429(2) defences, for example, have never been raised in respect of activities that are prohibited outright, and as you know, there are many activities in the cruelty provisions that are prohibited outright. Second, they've never been successfully argued, for example, with respect to causing unnecessary pain and suffering. So if you were to have a reference to them in the body of the offence itself, you would be signalling, or potentially signalling, to the court that you would now have an excuse with relation to the causing of unnecessary pain and suffering, for example. So you would, in fact, be changing the law in respect of present protections for animals.

Ms. Anne McLellan: You'd be undermining the present protections, and we want to move forward, we don't want to move backwards.

Ms. Karen Markham: To continue—and I apologize that I'm not able to speak in French—with the offences of killing and poisoning, we have retained “unlawfully” and the incredibly flexible concept, without lawful excuse, that it is at common law, and it's been confirmed by case law. The reason is that these activities go on all the time in legitimate industries, and so the lawful excuse reference becomes a very important means by which to circumscribe the scope of the offence, whereas in the other offences I mentioned, the activities prohibited outright or unnecessary pain and suffering, the defences would arise in extremely unusual situations. They don't arise on a daily basis.

If I may say so, there may be a misunderstanding that we need reference to lawful excuse in order to excuse legitimate activities, and that is not the case. The offence itself, for example, in committing unnecessary pain and suffering is not even made out unless the crown can prove that even if there was a legitimate purpose, the means chosen, as the minister has indicated, caused unnecessary suffering, in the sense that they were disproportionate or they were avoidable. So we don't even get into the issue of defences in that circumstance in most instances, and as I've said, they've never been successfully applied.

Where they are relevant to circumscribe the offence, they've been retained, and as the minister has indicated, for general application they've been retained by subsection 8(3), so accused persons are, in fact, not losing protections.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Owen, you have three minutes.

Mr. Stephen Owen (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Thank you, Minister, officials.

We've had some concern expressed, and again this morning, about frivolous and vexatious private prosecutions. I wonder, in relation to what we did with Bill C-15A as well, if Ms. Markham could address protections that do exist against those kinds of proceedings.

• 1050

Ms. Karen Markham: Thank you. Yes, that's actually a very important point. I appreciate the opportunity to address that. I think it relates to concerns that animal rights activists are going to be able to use the courts to bring frivolous prosecutions.

I won't go through all the technical provisions, but currently, the criminal law has provisions that require the consent of the court with a prosecution that is not being conducted by the Attorney General, which would obviously relate to private prosecutions, before an indictment can be preferred on that matter. What Bill C-15A has done is create a new section 507.1, which makes that scrutiny much earlier in the process, right off the bat. An information is laid, it's confirmed by the justice, and then it's referred to a provincial court judge. Before the provincial court judge or designated justice, as the case may be, can confirm or issue process on that particular charge, there has to be a hearing. The Attorney General is given notice of the hearing, has the option to attend, can call and cross-examine witnesses, etc. It's only after that process that process would issue on that particular charge.

That's a huge protection in cutting off vexatious prosecutions early. The reason this provision applies is that because all the offences in the cruelty provisions are hybrid offences, by the terms of the Interpretation Act they are treated as indictable offices. So all cruelty offences, save and except for one that relates to a breach of a prohibition order, will be screened in this fashion early on in the process.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hilstrom, three minutes.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, can you tell me the last time you personally were in an intensive livestock hog production barn?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Oh, my God. I was with a farmer in Nova Scotia. He runs a herd of award-winning Holsteins.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Have you been in the hog barn?

Ms. Anne McLellan: I have been in a hog barn. My sister-in-law's family run one of the largest hog operations in Nova Scotia.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Okay.

Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact, my brother and my sister-in-law, along with their dairy herd, used to have hogs. And when I was brought up, my father ran an intensive chicken operation. We had over 17,000 laying hens. They were in cages, and every day I was there gathering the eggs and doing whatever you do with an intensive chicken operation. So in fact, I understand a lot about the agricultural industry—and my brother has no problems with these provisions.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: That is just excellent, Minister, because my next question requires a knowledge of the agriculture farming industry.

You know what a farrowing crate is, obviously, and with the size of our farrowing crates, the benefit is that the little piglets don't get squashed. When they're born, they don't get eaten by the mother or other hogs. Can you guarantee me and the hog industry of this country that there will be no changes or prosecutions related to farrowing crates in this country, period?

Ms. Anne McLellan: I do know about farrowing crates, because my sister-in-law was in the hog business, and—

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: But can you guarantee me that there will be no prosecutions?

Ms. Anne McLellan: What I will say to you is what I said in response to Mr. Myers. What is lawful continues to be lawful. I can't be clearer, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: What about the size of chicken crates? Are they legal? Are they going to be prosecuted?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Look, what I would say—

The Chair: We should try to pose a question, and then answer the question.

Ms. Anne McLellan: What I would say very clearly is that what is lawful will continue to be lawful, and I hope I have established my bona fides in relation to understanding first-hand the nature of the agricultural sector and intensive livestock practices, based on my own personal experience.

Mr. Howard Hilstrom: So my time doesn't get all used up, let me make one last little point. In the European Union they have brought in laws that have changed the size of farrowing crates. They've brought in laws that have made their farming practices a lot more expensive than those in Canada and many other countries, and it's believed in the hog symposium in Regina, Saskatchewan, which was just recently held, that our country is moving to that. I am asking whether you have given any consideration to the economic impact of animal rights and animal welfare changes on the agriculture industry, which is always having the economic problem of remaining viable. Had you given any consideration to that?

• 1055

Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact, this is an issue I have discussed with those who've come to talk to me about this from the agricultural sector. Let me say, I have no jurisdiction, nor does this government, over the standards any province would choose to impose in relation to livestock practices, marketing practices, and other things. That is pretty much within the jurisdiction of the provinces, it has nothing to do with the criminal law. If standards are changed, either by provinces or by the industry or through the operation of rules of the WTO or somewhere else, that's a matter that is trade and commerce, it has nothing to do with the criminal law. I can do no better, Mr. Chair, than to say yet again that what is lawful under the law as it exists will continue to be lawful. I cannot be clearer, it's simple, it is straightforward.

The Chair: Now we go to Mr. Maloney for three minutes.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Madam Minister, during these hearings we've heard a lot of concern from our farmers and our medical researchers that it's going to be open season on them after the passage of this act. I appreciate your response to provide a level of comfort in this regard, especially the anticipated amendments to subsection 8(3). I also appreciate the comments of Ms. Markham on Mr. Owen's question. But it was mentioned earlier here that there has been some suggestion that perhaps provincial attorneys general be able to vet possible prosecutions, so that frivolous prosecutions do not even come to the fore, resulting in cost to the farmer, the university, or whoever conducting medical research. Is there any practical or compelling reason that we should not perhaps consider that?

Ms. Anne McLellan: In fact, I think, as Madam Markham has outlined, we have protections in the existing Criminal Code. A private prosecution can be commenced. What's crucial is what happens after that and what the role of the Attorney General is after that. As Madam Markham has outlined for you, in relation to section 507 of the Criminal Code, the Attorney General can get involved very early here, once the information is laid by a private citizen. Although it doesn't happen that often, an important part of our criminal law is that a private individual can lay information. The key is what happens after that.

We have, in fact, increased the protections against frivolous and vexatious prosecutions, because, as Madam Markham has outlined, the justice is required to hold a hearing and the Attorney General is given notice. The Attorney General will appear, and the Attorney General will make arguments if he or she believes that what is being pursued is frivolous or vexatious. So it will be nipped, potentially, at the very earliest stage.

That's section 507, but subsection 574(3) provides that a trial for an indictable offence in the Superior Court that is being prosecuted by someone other than the Attorney General cannot proceed without the written order of a judge of the court in which the trial is to proceed, and section 579 of the Criminal Code says the Attorney General may stay a proceeding before the court. So in fact, the protections are there, and if anything, the protections have been enhanced in relation to the prevention of frivolous and vexatious prosecutions.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Lanctôt, perhaps the other two questions we can get answers to.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you. I will not repeat the same question. I believe that I will have the answer from Mr. Webster, but I would simply like to add a little bit to it.

• 1100

With regard to proposed subsection 84(3)d), several groups appeared before us and told us that there was confusion caused by the double negation. The objective was really to clarify the exemption concerning the standards in order to establish whether, for example, paint balls could be considered as firearms requiring registration. One can clearly see that such is not the case. I simply believe that this should be rewritten to state clearly that is must be one or the other, to create an exemption from registration. You would merely need to specify whether it will be done, but, of course, I am waiting for the answer to the first question which is this: Will the commissioner take over the powers of the chief firearms officer in Quebec city?

[English]

Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt. I'll ask Gary Webster to respond to those questions.

Mr. Gary Webster: The answer, simply, to the question as to whether the commissioner is going to take over the responsibilities of the CFO is, no. We're talking here about the streamlining of a process that's required to ensure the efficient and effective processing of all applications for both licensing and registration. We're talking about streamlining that will see routine matters within that processing being undertaken by the registrar.

For areas that involve less risk and areas with respect to concerns for public safety, those concerns will be referred back to the CFO in consultation, with a CFO consultation resulting in a final decision having been made with respect to the issue of any particular licence, or even a registration. At the same time, the CFO maintains, as I suggested earlier, the substantive responsibilities of the CFO with respect to the actual issue of licences. They will continue to do that. They will continue to be appointed in the opt-in provinces by the provincial minister. They will continue to provide the authority for the transfer of prohibited and restricted firearms. They continue to issue licences or permits under special authority to possess with respect to automatic and converted automatic handguns. Those are just a few examples, I think, of where the CFO will continue to play an absolutely fundamental role with respect to the delivery of the program.

It is widely recognized by the Canadian Firearms Centre and the Department of Justice that the front-line knowledge and experience with respect to the situation of firearms in the community is best found in the firearms organizations in each of the provinces. By virtue of that, we have consulted widely, and we will continue to work very closely with the chief firearms officers in their capacity to implement and undertake their responsibilities under these amendments.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. McKay, three minutes, and then Mr. Fitzpatrick for three minutes—to give the minister a sense of the time remaining. Then Mr. Myers has a final short question.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for your appearance, and thank you for sharing your background. I too, in my family, have a great deal of experience with shovelling chicken excrement. I like to think I'm carrying on the family business up here. I wonder whether you might share in that opinion.

I have two questions. The first has to do with the movement of the section out of the property and into sexual offences, public morals, and disorderly conduct. It strikes me as a curious decision to move it from a property section to this particular section, for two reasons. First, by doing so, you end up raising the question of whether the defences move with it or not. I think you've addressed that by your amendments and, hopefully, your statements and the exchanges here. Second, it seems to me that if I were involved in victimization in relation to sexual offences, public morals, and things of that nature, I would be mortified if it were in the same section as animal cruelty. I wonder what the legal and logical reason is for not leaving it where it is currently and just simply creating a subsection within the subsection.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Let's clarify this. That's not where it is. It's in a separate section, as most modern animal cruelty provisions are in other countries. It's not in that section. Under previous proposed changes it was, but that is not what's reflected in this legislation. These provisions will form a separate part of the Criminal Code, as part of our ongoing reorganization and modernization of the code, reflective of the way, in part, other countries deal with this issue.

• 1105

Mr. John McKay: I'm taking that question from some representations from several sources. This one was the Poultry Welfare Coalition—so they're wrong in that?

Ms. Anne McLellan: Unfortunately, they misunderstand the situation. These provisions will be found in a separate part, as they are in more and more countries and states around the world.

Mr. John McKay: It seems to be a sensible solution.

Ms. Anne McLellan: That's right.

Mr. John McKay: My second question has to do with the issue of similar circumstances, suggested by the Canadian Medical Association to make clear that negligence would involve comparison of similar facts and similar acts. I think what they were concerned about there was that farmers would be compared to other kinds of categories of people charged with these kinds of offences. Is there a comfort you can give to them with respect to that particular section?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Ms. McLellan.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I'm going to let Ms. Markham respond.

Mr. John McKay: And I will stay rooted in my chair for the answer.

Ms. Karen Markham: I hope I meet your expectations.

For clarification again, you're talking about defining negligence from a standard of care that a reasonable person would use in those circumstances, something to that effect?

Mr. John Maloney: Yes.

Ms. Karen Markham: The reference in those circumstances is not necessary, because a very long line of cases, the latest of which was probably Creighton by the Supreme Court of Canada, have made it very clear that an assessment of the circumstances is absolutely vital to an assessment of whether there was a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use. The court would have to know what the circumstances are, because otherwise, they cannot make that assessment. The wording we have in subsection 2 has evolved through the case law, so that this is absolutely the clearest and most concise way to set out the text and to signal to the courts that we intend criminal negligence as the standard here. If we start modifying the test that has been understood by the courts, there is always a risk that you can create unintended substantive change to the provisions.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): I'd just like to reiterate one point. Farrowing crates, training of workers on welfare rights, individual stall system facilities, stocking densities, feeding systems, types of diets pregnant sows receive, and bedding material have all been under a lot of scrutiny in Europe because of legislation like this. These practices have been attacked and impacts flow out of this, and it's created a big cost increase for European producers. I just want to get that point across.

On the firearms issue, it seems to me we're talking about administrative matters, and at the present time I think the firearms people are in the process of refunding $10 fees to gun owners, and I think that should fall within the ambit of what we're trying to do here with administrative matters. I've seen private sector analysis of what it costs to send out a cheque, and it's up to $15 a cheque. So I just want to go through a few things here.

It would seem to me that the government would incur a cost of 50¢ for a stamp. It's going to take at least one third of an hour of staff time to process one of these things—I think I'm being conservative, because this isn't a Wal-Mart-run operation here—and I would venture to guess that's $11 of staff time on that. Envelopes, paper, and stationery, I'd say, have got to be two bits, and miscellaneous resources another 20¢. I was in the private sector for 25 years, and I ran an operation where I had to keep an eye on costs, a payroll and so on, and it seems to me, on my calculations here, and I think they're conservative, we're spending $11.70 to send out a $10 cheque back to applicants. Have you people done any analysis of what it costs your department to refund a $10 cheque back to these folks?

Ms. Anne McLellan: I don't know whether that analysis has been done, but if you're talking about the registration, it was graduated. It could be $10, $14, or $18.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I'm talking about the $10 one.

• 1110

Ms. Anne McLellan: Well, I'll let Mr. Webster—

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: But I hope you've got an analysis of that.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes, but let me come—

The Chair: Let her answer.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Let me come back to the point.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: No, I want it by my point.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Yes, that's right. Let me come back to the point that through this streamlining we are saving money. In the longer term, once the technological changes take place, the administrative streamlining takes place, we are going to save the taxpayer of Canada a considerable amount of money in the ongoing stable-state running of this program.

These are changes—

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: What's the cost per cheque?

The Chair: That's the last time you can ask the question.

Ms. Anne McLellan: The other thing I would say is that obviously, we want to encourage people to register early, to avoid what we saw with licensing, which was hundreds of thousands of applications being made in the month of December. No system, no matter how efficient it is, can quickly process hundreds of thousands of applications. So we asked what would provide an incentive to those people who are legitimate gun owners who want to register their guns. All our market analysis tells us that what provides the incentive is cost, a saving. In fact, we discovered that on our licensing program: when the fee was removed, the numbers of people who were complying went up astronomically. So what we wanted to do was provide an incentive to people to get into the registration side of the program early, and in fact, the cost savings in the long term to this program and the efficiency provided by early registration are enormous, and we have done all that work.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Myers, three minutes.

Mr. Lynn Myers: You keep hearing about the size of pens—we're going back now to cruelty to animals—and farm practice, the European example, and all those kinds of things. I think that's getting into scare tactics for farming, and I don't like it. You've listened to us on this whole issue, and you're now proposing, through the parliamentary secretary, the amendments that will alleviate those fears. I want to be crystal clear that such is the case, and I know it is, but I think we need to make sure farmers across Canada understand that to be the case.

You've been there. You've seen farm practice. You came from a farming family. You still have farming relatives involved in that.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Could we hear that one more time?

Mr. Lynn Myers: Yes, and I think we should. You have the credentials to support the legitimate use of farm practice and the codes of standard of conduct, and I think we need to make it crystal clear that this is precisely what's happening here. To resurrect European Union practices or whatever they're doing is, I think, irresponsible, and I don't like it, frankly.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Myers.

Ms. Anne McLellan: In spite of Mr. Fitzpatrick's denigration of my rural roots, which I find rather disturbing, let me say, Mr. Myers, that what I will do—

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: What was that again?

Ms. Anne McLellan: What I said was that I find it rather disturbing that Mr. Fitzpatrick appears to be denigrating my rural background.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Chair, I want to respond to that. I'd like to know what exact words I used to say that, so you can put them on the record and I know what you're talking about.

Ms. Anne McLellan: What were you referring to, Holstein pigs?

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Pardon?

Ms. Anne McLellan: You know what you said.

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: I don't know of a variety of pigs called Holsteins.

Ms. Anne McLellan: I will ignore that—

The Chair: I will check to find out what the blues say.

Ms. Anne McLellan: —because I'm very proud of my rural roots.

What I would say, Mr. Myers, is what I've said before, what is lawful continues to be lawful, and the criminal law has nothing to do with whatever agricultural organizations or whoever might choose, as a matter of voluntary standard setting, to adopt. That has nothing to do with the criminal law. We all know that, for example, practices in abattoirs have progressively improved. That has nothing to do with the criminal law, that has a lot to do with provincial regulations and with the industry themselves being responsible. In fact, we have a very fine agricultural sector in this country that understands the importance of moving standards forward as technology and other things permit.

• 1115

So in fact, let me again say, what is lawful continues to be lawful, and scare tactics are inappropriate. It is inappropriate, especially for elected representatives, to enter into fearmongering, when our job should be to help people understand the law and reassure people about the import and intent of this law.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister. I know that everybody else was taken by your background in the context of.... I should say I was most impressed by the fact that you are a Maritimer.

On that happy note, thank you very much to the minister and the officials.

Ms. Anne McLellan: Thank you. It was a pleasure to be here.

The Chair: I would bring to the attention of the members of the committee that clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-15B is scheduled for Tuesday, December 4, at 9:30. Members have received the coordinates of the staff who would be receiving proposed amendments, and I want to remind members that it would be helpful to the process if those who would like to present amendments could do so as soon as possible, so that they could be organized by staff. However, I also would remind members that it's your prerogative to bring amendments to the bill as we do clause-by-clause, as long as they're in written form.

On that point, the meeting's adjourned.