- English
- Français
Accessibility and Access Keys [4]
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Ottawa, Mark Holland, Ottawa Citizen Special – Nearly six years ago, in December 1999, the federal government introduced a bill to update Canada's antiquated laws on cruelty to animals. Years later, a revised version is still stuck in the House at first reading. The continued absence of strong criminal laws to protect animals from abuse is a national embarrassment.
Bill C-50 is the seventh incarnation of this bill. Earlier versions died when elections were called, or the bills became political footballs, tossed back and forth between the House of Commons and the Senate. The bill's history makes an excellent case study of what can go wrong.
Due to the current inadequacy of federal laws, authorities often rely on provincial legislation to prosecute offenders, even in cases of horrifying abuse against animals.
Most recently, SPCA officials in Richmond, B.C., charged a couple under provincial legislation after they found a young Rottweiler kept in a plastic Rubbermaid container, unable to stand or move around. The dog, Jiji, was chained to an anvil in the backyard. SPCA officials at first tried to educate the couple about dog care, but after further complaints from neighbours, they returned to find Jiji confined again in the box.
Despite this legislative stalemate, Canadians strongly support this bill. Existing laws, first enacted in 1892 and only slightly revised in 1956, are sadly out of date. We need harsher penalties for those who wantonly abuse animals, but we also must recognize that animals deserve protection not merely because they are “property.”
Bill C-50, which was introduced on May 16, has been significantly improved since it first appeared in 1999 as part of an omnibus bill to reform the Criminal Code. It responds to constructive criticism from the national Liberal rural caucus, the opposition, the Senate, and stakeholders on all sides of the debate.
Views differ about the role of animals in human society. I represent a largely urban riding where most people know animals as pets. For many rural Canadians, hunting is a way of life, whether for pest control, food, fur or sport. Farmers raise and slaughter animals to meet the demand for meat. Medical researchers use animals in place of humans for experimentation, sometimes leading to development of life-saving treatments.
While I would like to see more humane methods adopted in these activities, the Criminal Code is not the appropriate vehicle to achieve these changes. Farmers, hunters and others must be assured that they will not face criminal prosecution if they follow responsible practices. I believe the current bill provides such assurance.
Last October, Huron-Bruce MP Paul Steckle and I jointly signed a letter to Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, urging him to reintroduce this legislation without delay. We argued that it addressed concerns on both sides of the debate—animal-welfare advocates and animal-use industries.
Although our personal views about animals are at polar opposites, we wanted to underline the consensus. Mr. Steckle is an avid hunter whose office is decorated with animal head trophies. He represents a rural riding, and has long been involved in agriculture. I have long been an advocate of animal welfare and a vegetarian.
In November, a coalition of some 30 different organizations representing such diverse animal users as farmers, the fur industry and medical researchers also wrote to Mr. Cotler, supporting the consensus and urging passage without delay of the bill.
Regrettably, during the time between our letter and the introduction of Bill C-50, two counterproductive events occurred.
On Feb. 3, Liberal Senator John G. Bryden introduced Bill S-24. This unfortunate bill, consisting of half measures, deviates greatly from the consensus achieved over more than five years. Although it does raise penalties for cruelty to animals, it fails to close existing loopholes. Most notably, it leaves cruelty to animals in the “property” section of the Criminal Code, and it fails to add such new offences as training an animal to fight other animals, and “brutally or viciously” killing an animal. Bill S-24 must be defeated at the earliest opportunity.
More recently, several angling and hunting organizations obtained a legal opinion opposing C-50. Its main objection is to the section of the bill that makes it an offence to kill an animal “brutally or viciously.”
Clearly this is a delaying tactic that has more to do with politics than with genuine concern about the bill. I don't believe any responsible hunter advocates killing an animal “brutally or viciously.” Why a group should demand that right is beyond me, and frankly it reflects badly on the many responsible hunters.
This bill has been delayed long enough. A compromise has been achieved that addresses the concerns of reasonable people on all sides of this debate. When the House of Commons resumes this fall, quick passage of Bill C-50 must be among the first orders of business.
Mark Holland is the Liberal Member of Parliament for Ajax-Pickering.This article is reproduced here with the kind permission of Mark Holland and of the Ottawa Citizen.
© The Ottawa Citizen 2005
Copyright © 2005 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global Communications Corp. All rights reserved.
