Canada Struggles for Updated Animal Cruelty Legislation

By Kelly Caldwell

It’s hard to read or hear about the details of animal cruelty crimes and it’s safe to say that most Canadians are shocked by cases of willful animal abuse and neglect. I believe I can go one step further and say most of us are outraged by the sentences handed down to convicted offenders; that is, in the less than 1/3 of 1% of investigated animal cruelty cases that go to court in Canada. In the vast majority of cases, even the most horrific instances of animal suffering yield minimal consequences for offenders.

So what should we do with the knowledge that punishment for animal cruelty crimes is woefully inadequate? Take action and change the Criminal Code. This would ensure that our nation’s criminal prosecutors have the tools needed to appropriately charge and punish animal abusers. It sounds simple enough, but those who have been fighting for years to amend the Code’s animal cruelty section have learned that it is anything but easy.

The animal cruelty provisions in Canada’s Criminal Code were written in 1892, a time when Canadians traveled by horse and buggy and valued animals primarily for their ability to work. My, how times have changed. Today, a booming industry of retailers exists to provide Canadians with virtually everything imaginable for pampering their companion animals. And even today’s working animals are admired and adored for their off-the-job qualities. I recently met a police officer whose search-and-rescue dog was a tough canine cop on the job, but also a beloved member of the family whose favourite pastime was to play on slides with the officer’s young daughter. Indeed, times have changed.

Currently in our nation, a convicted animal cruelty offender could receive a maximum of six months in jail, up to $2000 in fines and no more than a two-year prohibition on “animal ownership.” Proposed Criminal Code amendments, most recently presented in Bill C-22, would have moved animals from the property section of the Code into a new, more appropriate section created specifically for animal cruelty offenses. The origin and purpose of the bill has been the cause of some confusion over the years. Some have interpreted this as animal-rights legislation and assumed that animal welfare groups were at the heart of the amendments. Shelagh MacDonald, Program Director for the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, clarifies. “The bill,” she explains, “was written by the Justice Department and had nothing to do with animal rights. It would not have changed the way animals are raised for food or kept as pets or killed for hunting. The purpose of Bill C-22 was to raise the status of animal violence crimes in our legislative processes.”

In the recommended changes, prosecutors would have been afforded the flexibility to decide, based upon the specifics of a case, whether to prosecute on a summary or indictable basis. Penalties would have been increased with potential for unlimited fines, up to five years in jail and a possible lifetime prohibition on “animal ownership.” By strengthening our animal abuse laws, Canada would have been sending two important messages. First, we would have clarified our country’s position that violence against animals is fundamentally wrong-- an acknowledgement that animals are capable of suffering. Second, the amendments would have recognized the role animal cruelty plays as part of the cycle of violence in our society.

Aside from providing stronger sentencing guidelines, Bill C-22 would have made long overdo changes to clean up the wording and modernize this section of the Criminal Code. “As an example,” MacDonald notes, “the current legislation addresses cockfighting but the new section would have expanded to cover dog-fighting — a far more prevalent problem in Canada.”

None of this sounds controversial, but in May of 2004, Canada’s Senate failed to add Bill C-22 to their agenda. Their failure to act on the bill was astonishing on many levels. Consider that the proposed amendments had the unwavering support of the House of Commons and were further supported not only by animal welfare groups, animal-loving citizens and veterinarians, but also by groups who had previously opposed the legislation, such as hunting, trapping and farming organizations. Still, the Senate failed to support changes that, according to Justice Department officials, generated more support and public correspondence than any other bill in our nation’s history. The Senate’s lack of support for such a widely supported bill is virtually unprecedented. “Their role,” MacDonald states, “is to provide sober second thought in our legislative process — not to defy the will of the Canadian people.”

So, now what? MacDonald is confident that Canada’s recently re-elected Liberal party will reintroduce the animal cruelty amendments bill. For that reason, she advises supporters to immediately contact their individual Members of Parliament. “Get after them,” she urges. “Phone, fax or email them and demand that they reintroduce this important bill.” Based upon the recent history of Bill C-22, a letter to members of the Senate — though obviously a good idea — may fall on deaf ears.

It was Gandhi who said, “the greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” Canada, I believe, has much to be proud of when it comes to our treatment of animals. There is room for improvement, yes, but we’re a nation brimming with animal lovers. By the millions, we love and cherish companion animals. We respect and value our nation’s wildlife. And we abhor animal cruelty, recognizing both the injustice and the societal significance of such crimes. Our view toward animal life has become more enlightened over the last century. It is now time for our country’s Criminal Code to catch up.

« Back To"Giving Back" page