Should Canadians Support Bill S-213?

Currently, animal cruelty provisions in Canada fall under Sections 444 to 447 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This legislation was enacted 114 years ago in 1892; though some minor revisions were done during the 1950s. The provisions can be found in Part XI of the Criminal Code; “Willful and Forbidden Acts in Respect of Certain Property”.

The existing laws reflect a time when society was most concerned about protecting cattle due to their economic significance. However, modern day society’s values have evolved.

First, let’s have a brief look at the current federal legislation, particularly as it applies to domestic animals such as dogs and cats.

Under the law, it is an offence to:

· wilfully cause or permit to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or a bird.

· neglect to provide a domestic animal or bird, or an animal or bird in captivity with adequate food, water, shelter or care

· wilfully and without lawful excuse kill, maim, wound, poison, or injure dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for lawful purpose

 · engage in various specific acts such as baiting an animal, participating in animal fighting, or causing damage or injury to an animal by transporting it in an unsafe manner. ⁽¹⁾

All offences (except those concerning cattle), are summary convictions that carry a maximum penalty of 6 months in prison or a $2000 fine, or both.

Thus, humans are not allowed to inflict “unnecessary” pain and suffering, however, they can kill animals for lawful purposes so long as it is in ways that minimize pain, suffering or injury.

Sections 444 and 445 of the code are designed to protect the property interests of the owners of an animal. They provide punishment for those who violate the property rights of another person. They are not concerned with the interest of the animal(s). The fact that the provisions are included in the property section of the Criminal Code indicates that the code is primarily concerned with protecting an owner’s interests.

Section 446 treats animals as something more than inanimate pieces of property. In this section, third parties and owners can be penalized for willfully inflicting pain, suffering or injury on an animal. Owners can also be punished for abandoning an animal in distress or willfully neglecting an animal.

The Need for Change

The inadequacy of the animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code have been highlighted in modern times, particularly in terms of the lenient sentences that have resulted. Crimes against animals are now viewed as morally reprehensible. The government was spurred into action as a result of mounting evidence that linked animal abuse with domestic violence and violence against people. In other words, people who commit crimes against animals often move on to commit violence against people, and as such, crimes against animals must be treated more seriously.

The leniency of the sentences provides no discouragement to offenders, particularly those who operate highly profitable puppy mills.

Take the example of an Ontario couple who have a 37 year history of running a puppy mill, with over 700 puppies starving, freezing and dying of disease in deplorable conditions. In 1969 the offender received 3 months in jail and a $500 fine. In 2003 he received a 3 month stay-at-home sentence, 3 years probation and a limited ban on owning dogs. In 2005 he was convicted once again and received 6 months in jail, 3 years probation, and a 2-year ban on owning animals. Where is the incentive to comply with the law when a puppy mill operator can sell each puppy for hundreds of dollars in profit?⁽²⁾

Under the current laws, a judge cannot impose more than a 2 year ban on owning or caring for animals. Plus, there is no means of ordering an offender to pay for the cost incurred by animal welfare organizations that care for their victims of cruelty.

Other inadequacies of the current legislation

A major flaw in the current laws is that, as a result of offences against animals being treated as property crimes, there is no protection for stray and wild animals.

For example, a man who ground a kitten’s skull into a pulp was acquitted because the prosecutors were unable to prove that the kitten was “owned”. This structure of the law also results in withdrawal of charges, high acquittal rates and lenient sentences due to a person’s right to harm their own property.

Investigators and law enforcement officers also encounter difficulty in that neglect must be proven “wilful”. It is not enough that a person starved an animal to death; prosecutors have to prove that it was done on purpose, thus leaving a huge loophole in the legislation.

Animal welfare organizations also point out that the legislation does not address brutal or vicious killing of an animal. For example, a dog that was tied to a tree was beaten to death with a baseball bat. Because the veterinarian testified that the dog died instantly, the offenders could not be convicted of causing unnecessary pain and suffering.

Humane investigators and law enforcement officers are reluctant to pursue investigation and prosecution of animal cruelty cases because of the difficulty in laying charges. In 2005, the BC SPCA conducted 5914 cruelty investigations, however only 49 charges were submitted to the Crown; this is a rate of 0.8%. In 2004 the BC SPCA conducted 8200 cruelty investigations but submitted only 39 charges to the Crown.⁽³⁾ The conviction rate in Canada in Canada for animal cruelty offences was 46% (1997-1998).⁽⁴⁾

New Legislation

Since 1999, numerous versions of upgrades to the federal animal cruelty laws have been proposed. None have yet been enacted. The last version before government was Bill C-50. These amendments would have moved animal cruelty out of the property section of the Criminal Code, made it illegal to brutally or viciously kill animals, increased penalties for those convicted, protected Aboriginal rights, allowed for restitution for animal welfare organizations that care for the victims of crimes, and allow for a ban on owning animals for any length of time. Bill C-50 died when the election was called in the fall of 2005

In April 2006, a new bill, Bill S-213 was introduced to the Senate. This bill is largely the same as the existing legislation with the exception of increased penalties for offenders. It does not move animal cruelty out of the property section of the Criminal Code. It does not address stray and unowned animals. It does not address the brutal or vicious killing of an animal, it does not define “animal” and it does not remove the burden on prosecutors of proving intent.

Bill S-213 does allow for a lifetime prohibition on ownership and those found guilty can be ordered to pay restitution to a person or organization that has taken care of their victims.

Those who support this bill argue that what Canadians want the most is tougher penalties for offenders. Senator Bryden, who introduced the bill, argued that there was no evidence that the existing Criminal Code would not permit a charge to be laid in a proper case. ⁽⁵⁾

The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and animal abuse investigators have a different point of view. If you cannot lay charges to begin with, they argue, what good are tougher penalties?

It has been argued that Bill C-50 went too far into uncharted legal territory to be accepted by Canadians. The case could be made that Bill S-213 does not go far enough.

On Dec 7th, 2006, Bill S-213 was passed by the Senate. It is now in the hands of the House of Commons.

The time to speak is now.

Be sure to have your say and write to your member of parliament about Bill S-213.

On Oct 30, 2006, MP Mark Holland re-intruduced a bill to amend animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code. This bill is identical to Bill C-50 and resolved the deficiencies of the current criminal code; deficiencies that would remain in place with Bill S-213.

The library of Parliament's Legislative Summary on Bill C-50 provides good background information:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c50&

source=library_prb&Parl=38&Ses=1

The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies also has good information:

http://www.cfhs.ca/legislation

(1) MacKay, Robin, 2005, Bill C-50: An act to Amend the Criminal Code in Respect of Cruelty to Animals, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Library of Parliament (see link printed above)

(2) Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. Available online at http://www.cfhs.ca/news/a_concentration_camp_for_dogs/  and at http://www.cfhs.ca/news/serial_animal_abusers_sentenced/

(3) BC Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Available online at http://www.spca.bc.ca/cruelty/statistics.asp

(4) Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, quoting Statistics Canada. Available online at http://www.cfhs.ca/legislation/cruelty_legislation_legal_analysis_1/

(5) Debates of the Senate, Tuesday May 2, 2006. First Session, 39th Parliament, Vol 143, No. 8. Publishing and Depository Services, Ottawa. Available online at http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-e/008db_2006-05-02-E.htm?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=1

For more information about the link between animal abuse and domestic violence visit the BC SPCA website: http://www.spca.bc.ca/link/default.asp