Dear Critter Chatter: 

I am confused about Bill C-15B.  First, I heard the bill was going to be passed with little difficulty and now I hear it is being stalled, it is being amended and even "it has been put on hold".  Can you please tell me, and other animal lovers, what is going on with this bill?

Mirror Reader

Dear Reader:

I have asked Anne Gibson from "Toronto Coalition for Bill C15b" to address your questions. 

On Tuesday, June 04^th 2002 the House of Commons voted to pass Bill C15b through its third reading and move it on to the Senate for Royal Assent.  This ruling came just one day after they voted to invoke closure on a protracted debate over amendments to Bill C15b. 

In one way or another, anticruelty legislation has been before the House since 1998 as Bill C17 when it was introduced by then Justice Minister Anne McLellan. Since then, it has been amended, combed over by the Standing Committee on Justice, amended again, examined by the Association of Criminal Lawyers and condoned and then finally, been subjected to the most ridiculous and time consuming battering by opposition many Members of Parliament had seen in years.

More than any other, Canadians have responded adamantly to this bill. Whether we see animals as commodities, assets and property or whether we see them as sentient beings capable of experiencing pain few of us are not touched by this issue.  Whether directly or indirectly, animals play an important role in all our lives and our views about the way we deal with them are changing.

Opposition to Bill C15b comes from the industry-oriented interests who have erroneously painted Bill C15b as anti-rural and anti-animal industry. They have also exploited this tactic to aggravate a schism in the Liberal party that would see it as pitting the rural Liberals against the urban.

However, there is nothing in Bill C15b that affects rural and animal-use industry any differently than it affects individuals with companion animals. Basically, the Bill C15b includes;

- raising the bar for sentencing in instances of cruelty against animals to a potentially indictable offence depending on the severity of the cruelty.

-allowing the judge to order the abuser to compensate the relevant humane organization that was paid for medical attention.

-increasing the maximum fine from $2,000 to $10,000

-increased the potential jail time to five years

-allowing for a lifetime ban on ever co-existing with an animal.

The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies has estimated that only .2 per cent of all cruelty complaints have ever resulted in charges in the past, and of those that rarely, if ever, has the maximum sentence been imposed.

With this new legislation, given that cruelty to animals will now be a potentially indictable offence, it is unlikely that the maximum imposed in the future.  But at least the option is there.

Furthermore, for offenses to the Criminal Code there are a much more stringent guidelines and conditions that must be met in order to even lay a charge. In this way, the proposed legislation will, in fact, make it harder to lay charges.  However, when charges are laid, they will have the power to shut down enterprises like the scourge of puppymills that pollute our country.  They will also be able to better protect animals from convicted animal abusers in the future. As well, the ownership of an animal will not be the determining feature governing the severity of the charge. In other words, wild or feral animals will have the same protection that farm and companion animals enjoy.

The ploy by opposition of running a smear campaign against the bill by extending Bill C15b's far beyond its capacity to affect normal, lawful business practices has farmers and industry people mistakenly turning against the bill.  Farmers, especially, are vulnerable to threats to their livelihood and are naturally fearful of what they perceive as government intervention.  To say that radical animal rights groups will have greater access to the legal system than farmers is completely misleading.   

With overwhelming support coming from law enforcement agencies, veterinarians, animal welfare organizations and the majority of Canadians the opposition is trying desperately not to villainize themselves as anti-animals by claiming that they, overall, agree with the bill.  However, the amendments they seek are to exclude farmers and animal use industry from inclusion in the Criminal Code, a code to which every Canadian citizen is subject.  Including specific provisions for these industries tantamount to excusing police officers from ever being charged with assault, doctors from sexual misconduct, and lawyers from perjury because of their special relationship to the community.  In this way, then, the amendments they seek would not only be unconstitutional, they would effectively create loopholes that would make the proposed legislation worse than the 150-year-old statutes we now have in place.

As of June 4^th it is up to the Senate to either pass the bill unamended, unilaterally institute amendments to appease special interest groups or send it back to the House for further debate--a debate that has been filibustered in the House for several years already.  Only time will tell if the Senate, who are not directly responsibly to the public, will act according to reason, facts and an evolving sentiment regarding animals or whether they will bend to industry lobbying and force this much needed bill to be held up even longer or worse still, amended and effectively dismantled. 

For more information or to contact Anne Gibson of Toronto Coalition for Bill C15b visit http://www.anticruelty.ca

DOG ADOPTIONS:

905-939-2692 and speak with Ann or Peter