CONTROVERSIAL Bill C-10B, an act to amend cruelty to animals legislation under the Criminal Code, is dead.
It was a casualty in a game of chicken between the House of Commons and the Senate and it will not be greatly mourned by farmers and ranchers. Last week the bill was sent to a Senate committee and is not expected to emerge from those recesses in time for Parliament to deal with it before adjournment.
From the birth of this contentious legislation, producers worried that proposed amendments would expose them to frivolous and vexatious prosecutions for ordinary animal practices such as branding, castrating, caging, penning and perhaps on-farm slaughter.
Read Also
Term easements positive way to protect grasslands
Term easements positive way to protect grasslands
The embers of their fears were fanned by animal rights groups that served notice of intentions to test new law at the earliest opportunity.
As the bill made its way through the parliamentary process, some amendments were made at the House level to soften the language that was of most concern to the farm lobby. Those changes were enough to elicit grudging approval from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association.
But farmer unease lingered. Some senators recognized it. And in a showing of protective spirit that seems all too rare from this house of sober second thought, these same senators fought for amendments to protect the animal handling practices of farmers, ranchers and aboriginals.
Government members insisted the wording provided sufficient protection for producers but certain senators did not share that confidence. And many farmers, particularly those in Western Canada, are disinclined to believe government assurances regardless of subject.
All of this brought the death of the bill, and better no bill than one that might harm farmers and ranchers.
But there is little doubt the matter will rise again in new guise in front of the next government. That’s because the intent of Bill C-10B was supported virtually unanimously by farmers, ranchers, lobby groups and political parties – to increase the penalties for willful or reckless cruelty to animals.
A new bill that also embodied steeper penalties would doubtless enjoy similar unanimity of opinion.
Perhaps such a bill can also employ wording that provides better protection for agricultural producers engaged in ordinary farming practices.
Yet the reverse scenario might also occur. New legislation might cater more to the wishes of animal rights advocates than to the protection of ordinary food animal practices.
So, while the late Bill C-10B is largely unlamented, it could and should be used as a lesson in the development of future legislation that sits more comfortably with food production.
