Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 1 - Evidence for November 21, 2007
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), met this day at 4:10 p.m. to give consideration to the bill; and to examine and report on the implications of including, in legislation, non-derogation clauses relating to existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. Welcome to the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
We have two items on the agenda this afternoon. The first is consideration of Bill S-203, to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals). Honourable senators will recall that this bill has previously been before us and, for various reasons, it is important for us to be absolutely certain that the bill before us today is identical to that which this committee has already considered in previous sessions of Parliament, notably the last session of Parliament.
In order to be copper-bottom certain of that, we have received a letter from the Senate's Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Mr. Marc Audcent, and I propose to read that letter into the record. The letter is dated November 20, 2007, by hand to the Honourable Joan Fraser, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It reads as follows:
Dear Senator Fraser,
Pursuant to your request, please be advised that Bill S-203 of the 2nd session of the 39th Parliament, intituled An Act to Amendment the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), is in substance the same as Bill S-213 of the previous session, as passed by the Senate on December 7, 2006 and sent to the House of Commons.
If Bill S-203 were to be passed by the Senate without amendment it would be sent to the House of Commons in the same form as Bill S-213 was sent, subject only to the required changes in the bill number, the sessional reference, the regnal and calendar year references, and the date on which the bill was passed by the Senate.
I trust that the above meets your needs, and am
Yours truly,
Marc Audcent
The letter was copied to Mr. Adam Thompson, our committee clerk.
Having read the letter, we can be absolutely certain, honourable senators, that the bill we are now considering is identical to the bill this committee considered at length in the previous session of Parliament, and passed. Indeed, it is the bill that was adopted by the full Senate.
The agenda says that the Honourable John G. Bryden, sponsor of the bill in the Senate, is our witness this afternoon. However, Senator Bryden informs me that he does not necessarily feel any need to say anything, given that Bill S-203 is the same bill. Is that accurate, Senator Bryden?
Senator Bryden: Just off the record for a minute, I do not think anybody around this table believes you when you say that I do not want to say anything.
The Chair: I chose my words carefully.
Hon. John G. Bryden, Sponsor of the bill: That is correct. I am here as a resource person if there is a question that needs to be answered. However, this is not an opportunity to give evidence or to change anything. Therefore, no, I do not have anything to say, unless I am asked.
The Chair: Indeed, it is a fairly common practice in these situations simply to adopt the work that was done on the identical bill in the previous session of Parliament. That is what the steering committee concluded was where we would go with this bill.
Senator Watt: I want to ask Senator Bryden for a bit of a clarification, to ensure that I have a full understanding.
At the beginning, we had some concern in relation to the fact that Aboriginal people might be prohibited from using their traditional equipment to be able to do the harvesting. Do you remember that? I believe that was eliminated and thus not a concern anymore.
The Chair: That question was addressed in the last session, Senator Watt.
Senator Andreychuk: I think that related to the previous bill, not Senator Bryden's bill.
Senator Watt: This is still a cruelty bill.
The Chair: This is the bill that Senator Bryden brought in after a large bill on cruelty to animals was defeated. It was thoroughly studied and, in earlier versions, amended to meet the objections that you and others had at the time. This is the same bill we all endorsed in the last session.
Senator Watt: I am fully aware of that. I just want to put honourable senators on notice that the concern I had at that time is becoming a reality for our people in the North. That is all I wanted to say. It is something we may have to look at in the future.
The Chair: Thank you for that advance word, Senator Watt.
Senator Oliver: I have a question I should like to put to Senator Bryden.
As he knows, and as I referred to in my remarks in the chamber on this bill, there a number of individuals and organizations are strongly opposed to this bill, in this form. I am certain that he has, as I have, received a number of emails and letters from those who do not favour this treatment of amending the Criminal Code for the protection of cruelty to animals.
I am wondering if he has had any representations since this bill was before the house in December 2006 that he would like to bring to the committee's attention from individuals or witnesses that we should know about who have genuine concerns about this bill.
Senator Bryden: I want to answer this question. The answer is no, and it is no in this way: No new information came to me that I was not already aware of at the time that we had passed Bill S-213. I feel quite comfortable with there being concerns if they exist.
This bill must be exactly like the one that we had previously if it is to go back into the House of Commons, as you said in your speech. At that time, this bill was at committee stage in the House of Commons. The bill will be before the Commons committee as it was in the past, and their purpose, should they decide to, is to call witnesses, to be able to pick up any concerns that people may have that we are not aware of. That is the process.
It goes back to the House of Commons in the Justice and Human Rights Committee where they are in a position to hold hearings, if they so decide.
Senator Oliver: I understand that. Let me put the same question in a different way.
This is not an in camera meeting but a public one, a hearing of a Senate committee to which the public is entitled to appear should the committee, in its wisdom, see fit to hear them. I just wanted to know if you have received any new representations from anyone to appear, that we had not heard from before — that is, someone with a new point of view that you thought this committee should know about. That is my question.
Senator Bryden: No.
Senator Oliver: No to what?
Senator Bryden: No, I have not heard from anybody wanting to appear here with anything new that we have not already heard before. The answer is no.
The Chair: I do not want to interrupt your line of questioning.
Senator Oliver: Go ahead.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I think the steering committee and most committee members will bear me out when I say that we have basically two options before us: We can accept the work of our predecessor committee under your able chairmanship and proceed taking that work as the basis for our decisions here today; or we can reopen the entire matter, in which case we must complete the whole study all over again.
It was the view of the steering committee that it would be appropriate to accept the work of the previous committee and proceed on that basis. It was my understanding that most members of this committee agreed with that course.
You will recall that at the last meeting of this committee, I requested twice that senators get in touch with the steering committee if they wish to suggest any further witnesses to be heard on this or any other bill. I used the words ``as soon as possible.'' No senator got in touch with the steering committee or with the clerk to request that any witness be heard. On that basis, the steering committee is proceeding with the recommendation that we conduct whatever examination we want to today, but not, as I say, reopen the work of the previous committee, and that we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill tomorrow morning at our next meeting.
Senator Di Nino: For the sake of putting this on the floor, I move that we accept the recommendation of the steering committee.
The Chair: Thank you. We have a motion before us. All those in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Abstentions? The motion is carried.
I am sorry to have had that interruption, Senator Oliver. Did you wish to pursue your line of questioning?
Senator Oliver: No, of course not.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Joyal: If I may ask a question of the chair, I notice that Bill S-203 before us is identical in terms of its substantial clauses. Clauses 1 and 2 are identical, as you stated quite properly, to Bill S-213, as passed by the Senate.
In Bill S-213, as passed by the Senate, no explanatory notes were printed in the back, while there were some notes in the bill as presented at first reading. I understand that because we are proceeding with the exact same bill, there was no need to print the explanatory note in the bill at first reading. Can the chair confirm that? It is a very technical issue.
The Chair: I had always thought that explanatory notes were not part of the bill.
Senator Joyal: I agree with you on that. There is no doubt about that in my mind. However, at first reading, Bill S- 203 covers the exact same ground as Bill S-213, but the latter added explanatory notes to express the substance of the bill. They were not included in Bill S-203 at first reading. I know they disappeared when Bill S-213 received third reading in the Senate and was sent to the House of Commons, as I have seen in my copy.
I wonder why it is when we examine the bill at committee after second reading that we do not deal with the printed version that includes the explanatory notes. Is anybody able to tell me why that is so?
The Chair: That happens because we are examining the bill in its form as passed by the Senate at third reading, which means the explanatory notes disappear.
Senator Joyal: Exactly. In other words, we are proceeding on exactly the same basis since the last decision in relation to the bill so. Therefore, no one can say that we are dealing with a bill that is different in substance than what it was at the original first and second reading.
The Chair: No.
Senator Joyal: I want to ensure that that is very clear.
The Chair: Good point to have on the record. As I say, we shall proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill tomorrow at our next meeting.
We shall now move to the second item on our agenda. At this point, since we will consider a draft report, we will go in camera. I would ask all unauthorized people to leave the room.
The committee continued in camera.