Provincial & territorial animal protection laws: the good, the bad and the ugly
Thursday, June 02, 2011
The widely varying quality of animal protection laws in Canada’s provinces and territories has been brought to attention once again with the recent release of the 2011 Canadian Animal Protection Laws Rankings by the Animal Legal Defense fund. It’s the fourth such annual report to compare and rank Canada’s provincial and territorial animal protection laws.
This year, top rankings went to Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, while the bottom tier is occupied by Nunavut, Quebec, the Northwest Territories and Alberta.
This report helps highlight current best practices in animal protection legislation. Of the four provinces listed in the top tier, all have laws that:
- Identify basic standards of care that must be met
- Apply to most animals
- Grant clear law enforcement authority to animal protection officers and inspectors
- Allow officers to seize animals without having to wait for a warrant in emergency situations
- Allow courts to place restrictions on future possession of animals by convicted offenders
Some or all of the above criteria are missing in the laws of the provinces and territories in the lowest tier of rankings. For instance, none of the jurisdictions in the lowest tier has a legal prohibition on training or permitting animals to fight.
Meanwhile, neither the Northwest Territories nor Nunavut have comprehensive animal protection laws; their laws only apply to dogs.
It is the responsibility of all those who care about animals to speak up for better laws in their provinces or territories, encouraging the progressive strengthening of animal protection laws. There is much room for improvement in all the provincial and territorial animal protection laws, including those ranked high in the report. We hope all Canadian animal lovers will continue to pressure their provincial and territorial governments on this important issue.
Why provincial laws matter
All of the provinces and territories have their own animal protection laws. They vary widely in terms of which what kind of animal welfare cruelty issues are covered and the level of protection provided. The degree to which the laws are enforced, and who is responsible for enforcement of the laws, also varies significantly from one jurisdiction to the next.
There is some overlap between these laws and the animal cruelty section of Canada’s Criminal Code, in that some of the offenses listed in provincial and territorial laws are also included in the Criminal Code. In cases of animal abuse, enforcement officers may choose to lay charges under the provincial or territorial law, the Criminal Code, or both.
In general, provincial laws usually have broader, stronger protections for animals than the Criminal Code, and to include specific standards of care that animal owners must adhere to (which the code does not). Because of this, enforcement officials in provinces that have broad, comprehensive animal welfare legislation tend to lay charges under the provincial law more frequently than under the Criminal Code.
Why strengthening provincial laws can’t replace Criminal Code reforms
While provincial laws are important, they cannot replace the federal Criminal Code. Both are needed. First of all, not all provinces and territories have effective animal protection laws; abuse of animals other than dogs in Nunavut or the Northwest Territories, for instance, doesn’t fall under any territorial law. Only the federal law covers such cases.
Secondly, most Canadians consider animal cruelty to be a serious crime and want animal abusers to face criminal charges. Those convicted only under provincial laws do not receive a criminal record, so they can easily move to another province and continue their abuses. Animal cruelty shouldn’t be treated as merely a provincial offence, but should be recognized in Canada’s law as a serious crime.
Unfortunately the existing animal cruelty sections of the Criminal Code are incredibly weak, remaining essentially unchanged since 1892. They are rife with loopholes that allow many acts of cruelty, including in some cases starving an animal death, to go unpunished.
It is unacceptable that the Criminal Code treats animals as mere property, provides no protection for stray or wild animals and makes the prosecution of animal neglect nearly impossible. Increased sentencing provisions were added to the law in 2008, but increased penalties are of little use when convictions are so hard to secure.
The CFHS will continue to push for much-needed changes to the Criminal Code. To learn more and add your voice to the fight, please see www.stopanimalabuse.ca.
