The House of Commons has strongly endorsed amendments to cruelty-to-animals laws that opponents decried as a weak and backward step.
By a vote of 189-70, MPs approved Bill S-203 April 9, the first substantive change in the animal cruelty rules since they were put into the Criminal Code in 1892.
The legislation, already approved in the Senate and therefore headed into law, increases fines and prison terms and expands court powers to prohibit a convicted abuser from owning or caring for animals.
Conservatives and most Bloc Québécois MPs voted for the bill, which was sponsored by New Brunswick Liberal Charles Hubbard in the Commons and New Brunswick Liberal John Bryden in the Senate. New Democrats opposed it and the Liberal caucus split.
Read Also
August rain welcome, but offered limited relief
Increased precipitation in August aids farmers prior to harvest in southern prairies of Canada.
Supporters of the bill said a future Parliament could approve tougher legislation if it wants.
“Many people have written to me saying that I have to vote against Bill S-203 because if that passes then nobody will have any incentive to make any changes in the future,” Toronto Liberal Paul Szabo said during debate.
“That is not right. Any piece of legislation can be amended from time to time.”
However, critics insisted that while it is theoretically possible, chances are slim that Parliament will invest more time on the issue in the near future, and as a result, the new rules will be in force for some time.
They argued that the regulations are too weak, leaving in place 19th century definitions of animals and their place in society, offering only limited opportunities to get convictions or lay charges and leaving outside the law wild or stray animals and human-organized animal fights.
Shelagh MacDonald, program director for the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, said the new bill is simply an 1892 law adjusted for inflation.
Animal welfare groups said MPs who supported the bill were “out of date, out of step and out of touch with the expectations of Canadians today.”
The federation vowed to continue to fight for tougher rules and posted a link on its website letting Canadians know how their MPs voted.
At least seven previous attempts to amend the legislation have been made during the past decade, including much tougher and more comprehensive amendments sponsored by the then-Liberal government, approved by the Commons and killed in the Senate.
“It is extremely disappointing that almost 10 years of debate have only produced this, a bill that will still allow the vast majority of animal abusers to escape punishment” MacDonald said.
“Bill S-203 continues to make it nearly impossible to punish crimes of neglect and does not criminalize the breeding and training of animals to fight each other.”
During the Commons debate, critics said that because the bill only makes animal neglect punishable if it was done willfully, a recent case of horse starvation in Alberta likely could not be successfully prosecuted because intent might not be provable.
Toronto Liberal Mark Holland is sponsoring a private member’s bill that reflects tougher earlier government legislation, but it is far down the priority list for debate and almost certainly will not come to a vote in this Parliament.
Hubbard said that is why his bill, flawed as it is, will be better than nothing.
“I hope as time progresses we as Canadians can develop legislation which is valuable to all, protects our animals, birds and fish and above all does not cause harm or unjustness to our farmers and fishermen and those who rely upon these species for their livelihood.”
