CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 138 Ï NUMBER 113 Ï 2nd SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, June 6, 2003 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 6955 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, June 6, 2003 The House met at 10 a.m. Page 4, clause 2: Replace lines 22 to 24 with the following: “182.5 For greater certainty, the defences set out in subsection 429(2) apply, to the extent that they are relevant, in respect of proceedings for an offence under this Prayers Part.”. [English] GOVERNMENT ORDERS Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Ï (1005) Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the debate on the [Translation] amendments made in the other place to Bill C-10B, an act to amend LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION ACT the Criminal Code with respect to animal cruelty. The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendment by the Senate to Bill C-15, an act to Bill C-10B received third reading and was passed in the other amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. place on May 29. After careful study and reflection, five amendments were adopted. One amendment is a minor house- The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? keeping amendment and four reflect more substantive changes. The Some hon. members: Question. House now has an opportunity to consider and vote on these amendments. I will briefly summarize these amendments. The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? The housekeeping measure corrected a word in the French text of Some hon. members: Agreed. the proposed section 182.6, which deals with injury to police animals and was a provision put into Bill C-10B by the justice committee of Some hon. members: On division. this House. The French text had a small error, in that it used the word (Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and aux where the word des should have been used. The government concurred in) supports the correction of this error. *** The second amendment would abbreviate the definition of animal ACT TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL CODE (CRUELTY TO contained in Bill C-10B. The definition of animal was “a vertebrate, ANIMALS) other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Justice) moved: to feel pain”. The amendment made in the other place would cut off That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House agrees the definition after “other than a human being” so that it would with amendments numbered 1 and 5 made by the Senate to Bill C-10B, An Act to include vertebrates, but not “any other animal that has the capacity to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals); but feel pain”. The current sections of the Criminal Code that deal with Disagrees with amendment numbered 2 because the amendment is inconsistent with the other elements of the offence and makes the law less clear and because the animal cruelty do not contain a definition of animal. It is therefore a amendment would collapse two offences with different elements into one single term capable of extending to all manner of animal life, including offence, leading to confusion about the elements of the offence and to problems for many invertebrates. police and prosecutors; Disagrees with amendment numbered 3 because it is unclear and creates confusion about whether the intent is to create a different test for liability of The original definition in Bill C-10B was drafted with a view to aboriginal persons and because there is no clarity as to what “traditional practices” bringing some clarity and certainty into the law by clearly are and how law enforcement can be expected to act accordingly; and enunciating that vertebrates were included. It was also designed to Agrees with the principle set out in amendment numbered 4, namely, the desire to achieve maximum flexibility in respect of animals that are not reassure Canadians that no defences are lost, but, because the wording of the invertebrates. The original definition would have allowed the Crown amendment would codify a reverse onus by requiring an accused person to prove his or her innocence on a balance of probabilities, would propose the following to prosecute a case in respect of a non-vertebrate if it was prepared to amendment: meet the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Amendment numbered 4 be amended to read as follows: animal had the capacity to feel pain. 6956 COMMONS DEBATES June 6, 2003 Government Orders The science of animal physiology is evolving and will continue to However, some people continue to fear that the absence of the evolve. This element of the definition allowed the law to continue to words could result in a court finding that the defences are no longer evolve with the science. The policy rationale was clear. Any animal available. The government can understand the desire to reassure that is of a species that has the capacity to feel pain should be Canadians, who may perhaps not be familiar with such intricacies of protected from the infliction of pain that is not necessary. The the criminal law, and who may fear that the removal of reference to amendment would foreclose the possibility of any charge in relation these defences could lead to their loss of application. The to an invertebrate. It chooses maximum certainty of the definition, all amendment made by the other place was meant as such a vertebrates and only vertebrates over flexibility in the law. This is reassurance. It does not change the law nor provide any new not the choice that the government made. The government can protections. understand the preference for certainty over flexibility and so the government is prepared not to oppose this amendment. Although the government can understand the goal of reassuring The third amendment reflects a concern that defences in Canadians, the manner in which this has been accomplished is subsection 429(2) of the code were being taken away. This unsatisfactory for two reasons. First, it reintroduces the reverse onus amendment has replaced section 182.5 which expressly refers to with the words “if he proves that”. This would require an accused to subsection 8(3) of the Criminal Code which preserves all the prove his or her innocence on a balance of probabilities, a burden common law defences. The justice committee of the House added that the accused should not have and would not have in the absence section 182.5 during its study of Bill C-10B. The amendment would of the amendment. replace the reference to subsection 8(3) with a reproduction of a smaller set of defences that is currently in subsection 429(2) of the Criminal Code. Section 182.5 now reads: It is almost certainly an unjustifiable violation of the presumption of innocence. Most provisions in the Criminal Code introduced after No person shall be convicted of an offence under this Part where he proves that he the charter do not have this reverse onus because the courts are likely acted with legal justification or excuse or with colour of right. to find that it violates the charter. It is poor law reform to introduce a The intent of this amendment was to reassure Canadians that the provision that, on its face, likely violates the charter. specific defences in subsection 429(2) would not be lost in Bill C-10B. The second reason the government does not support this wording In fact, even if no express reference is made to “legal justification is because it would give rise to a degree of uncertainty about whether or excuse with colour of right”, those defences are common law the full body of case law decided under subsection 429(2) would defences and captured by subsection 8(3) of the Criminal Code. continue to apply. It would certainly be desirable to signal to the Therefore, this amendment is not legally necessary. Those defences courts that the old case law should continue to apply. This is are available to any accused charged with any offence and they do important both in terms of the application of case law that interprets not need to be rewritten into every section of the code in order for the meaning and scope of these defences, and in relation to some them to be available. case law that already suggests the reverse onus in subsection 429(2) is unconstitutional and of no force or effect. Ï (1010) The very existence of a subsection like 429(2) creates the kind of The government therefore proposes an amendment to the confusion that has led to this concern. This is an old subsection that amendment with slightly different wording that would accomplish was enacted before the charter in order to reverse the burden of proof the very objectives sought by the other place, and at the same time, for certain common law defences in the case of certain offences. would avoid the constitutionality problem of reverse onus. In Reversing the burden of proof means that the accused must prove addition, the government's amendment would signal more clearly to that the defence applies. Normally the Crown must prove beyond a the courts that the old case law should continue to apply.