While the Canadian Parliament dithers over Senator Bryden’s do-little Animal Cruelty Bill S-203, Ontario is stepping up to a much-needed and long-overdue overhaul of its 90-year old provincial legislation.

Long-time animal protector, Hugh Coghill, the Chief Inspector with the Ontario SPCA, struggled to compose himself as he spoke to reporters.

“It’s a great day for the animals in Ontario, and that’s what we’re focused on,” he said, then took a deep breath. “Sorry. Been waiting a long time for it.”

The province’s Animal Protection Act is considered by many to be a point of shame for the province. Animal advocates claim it currently does little to ensure creatures receive the proper care and the people who mistreat them get punishments they deserve.

But today, the government introduced legislation that will strengthen the Act with new measures, including new rules on the province’s 50 roadside zoos that will impose higher standards for owners and allow the Ontario SPCA to inspect them and making animal cruelty a provincial offence carrying stiffer penalties.

“It’s going to be good news for all people who love animals,” Community Safety and Correctional Services Minister Rick Bartolucci said. “I would hope that those people who have stewardship of animal care will say we’ve gone from worst to first with this legislation.”

“We always try to get people to look after their animals in a proper and humane way. And if they don’t, this legislation gives us the tools to be able to deal with it in a far more effective manner,” says Coghill.

For many, this overhaul is long overdue as Ontario has some of the most lax animal protection laws in the country. Currently, the province’s small zoos aren’t held to any standards, with many animals forced to live in filthy and flimsy pens without clean drinking water. Animal cruelty is only considered a provincial offence if the creature is involved in a commercial breeding operation.

The standard of care for animals in a commercial operation includes adequate food, water and space. However, these guidelines don’t apply to pets, who are considered possessions.

While opposition parties are pleased to see a proposed change to this legislation, they’re still waiting to see if the Liberal overhaul has any real teeth and adequate funding.

“Right now, they don’t have the budget to do the work that they’re supposed to be doing,” Ontario NDP Leader Howard Hampton said.

“If we’re going to take this issue seriously, the Ontario SPCA has to have a consistent level of funding that will allow them to do the work — something that isn’t there now.”

The proposed legislation has several aims, including:

• making it a provincial offence to cause distress to an animal
• stiffer penalties, which include jail terms, fines and lifetime bans on animal ownership
• inspection rights at facilities where animals are kept for sale or exhibit
• banning animal fighting
• and protecting veterinarians from liability when reporting allegations of cruelty.

To read the full OSPCA Act, as it currently stands, click here. To read the proposed changes, click here.

Nowhere is the sheer uselessness of the current Canadian Parliament more evident than in its handling of animal cruelty legislation.

An animal cruelty bill headed for final reading in the House of Commons on Friday has been condemned by opponents as “19th-century legislation adjusted for inflation.”

Bill S-203 is a sham

If Bill S-203 is passed in April or May, when it comes to a third and final reading in the House of Commons, our animal friends will suffer. The bill, which purports to update Canada’s Animal Cruelty Act, is a sham. Some of its critics say that its only function is to earn brownie points for politicians.

The bill’s critics include practically every animal protection group in Canada, from the SPCAs and humane societies to the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and grassroots organizations.

The Canadian public wants better. Just read the letters to the editor every time humane society inspectors break up another miserable puppy mill hell. People will tolerate all kinds of objectionable behaviour towards humans. But when a yobbo drags his dog behind an SUV, the overwhelming public sentiment is to string him up.

And yet after more than eight years of trying, Canada’s elected Members of Parliament can’t pass a decent animal cruelty bill into law.

The current legislation, dating from 1892, is ineffective in both scope and penalty. Efforts to update it began in 1999 but quickly ran into a buzz saw of opposition from farmers and hunters.

Eventually a watered-down version passed the Commons and went to the Senate – only to be bogged down again. Animal researchers wanted to be exempted as did alligator wrestlers. Aboriginal groups worried that a ban on brutal treatment might impinge on their traditions. Jewish and Muslim groups fretted that tougher laws might affect ritual slaughter practices.

At that point, Liberal Senator John Bryden came up with the worst of all possible worlds – a new bill that would keep the loophole-ridden 1892 law as is but make the penalties (which in practice are rarely applied) harsher.

“(Prior attempts) died primarily because the bills tried to do too much,” Mr. Bryden said. “I put a bill in that didn’t change the law, it addressed the penalties.”

Harper’s Conservatives enthusiastically embraced his private member’s bill. The New Democrats and Bloc Québécois did not. Predictably, the Liberals were split.

Ajax-Pickering MP Mark Holland tried to introduce a much stronger Bill C-373. But rural Liberals tended to support Bryden’s do-little Senate version. In February, his Bill S-203 sailed through the Commons justice committee with Liberal support. Some said they didn’t much like S-203 but would pass it anyway and then fix it another year. The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies says that there’s faint hope of that happening.

“We all look forward to the day when our laws concerning the abuse of animals are brought into line with acceptable sentences. However, it is never wise to be too hasty in changing the Criminal Code, given the far-reaching and sometimes unexpected consequences that can flow from our decisions.” ~~ Senator Donald Oliver, Nova Scotia

Under S-203, there would be no legal definition of what an animal is, and animal neglect would have to be proven to be predetermined or willful in order to be prosecuted.

MPs planning to vote in favour of S-203 say that, granted, it’s not a great improvement over the old laws, but it is “a step in the right direction” that’s “better than nothing.” That is pure bull. S-203 is a useless and vacuous piece of legislation, a blocking tactic that will stall forward movement and do nothing to help animals.

Intent to harm must still be shown, and this makes it nearly impossible to get convictions, especially in cases of negligence. Fewer than 1 per cent of animal abuse complaints are successfully prosecuted, and S-203 will do nothing to change that. What good are stronger penalties when we can’t get convictions? And only animals that are somebody’s “property” are “protected” - not stray or wild animals.

A recent report by IFAW shows Canada has the worst animal cruelty laws among the 14 countries surveyed, including the Ukraine and the Philippines.

Compared with other developed countries, Canada’s Third World mentality on animal cruelty issues is beyond shameful.

A better solution: Bill C-373

The member’s bill that would actually do something to help animals is Holland’s Bill C-373.

Holland’s bill introduces the term “negligent” and defines it as “departing markedly from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use.” It prohibits the killing of any animal (owned or unowned) without a lawful excuse. (Lawful excuses include hunting, fishing, farming, euthanasia and self-protection.)

It outlaws killing an animal brutally or viciously, whether or not the animal dies immediately — which means that the boys in Edmonton who tied a dog to a tree and beat it to death would not get off on the basis that it died on the first blow (according to the examining vet) and therefore didn’t suffer. Other provisions deal with aspects such as fighting and baiting. Perhaps best of all, C-373 moves these laws out of the property chapter of the Criminal Code, reflecting the contemporary view of animals as sentient beings, rather than possessions.

MPs know that most Canadians support progressive animal abuse legislation. Those who disapprove of cruelty to animals may be interested in discovering how their MPs voted.

Excerpted from Thomas Walkom (Toronto Star, April 2), Matthew Jay (Ottawa Citizen, April 2), and A.S.A. Harrison (Globe and Mail, March 25)

Update on April 10

By a vote of 189-71, Bill S-203 passed final vote in the House of Commons on April 9th. It will become law once it receives Royal Assent and Proclamation.

More than 130,000 Canadians signed petitions specifically opposing Bill S-203. A 2006 poll found 85% of Canadians want modern and effective legislation that makes it easier for law enforcement agencies to prosecute those who commit criminal acts of animal cruelty.

Stated Pat Tohill, WSPA Programs Manager: “During the debate, many MPs argued that S-203 was only a first step. Many said they would support MP Mark Holland’s Bill C-373. Most said they would support further amendments to Canada’s animal cruelty laws. We will be holding MPs to their commitment to support further amendments to Canada’s cruelty laws. Canadians will not wait another century before animals are protected from heinous acts of cruelty in Canada.”

A more comprehensive animal cruelty bill has been passed by Canada’s House of Commons twice in the past ten years, receiving the support of all political parties only to die in the Senate.

The opposing votes were from NDP and some Liberal members and one Bloc MP. Conservatives stood steadfastly in support of this shameful bill that retains the archaic and problematic offences enacted in 1892.

To those MPs who supported Bill S-203, you can tick that off your list for another hundred years. Shame on you.

Check out the Don’t Be Cruel website to see how your MP voted.

In recent months, a number of high-profile animal abuse cases across the country has made many Canadians aware of how woefully inadequate and outdated Canada’s laws against animal cruelty are.

These well-publicized incidents have prompted thousands of Canadians to sign petitions and write letters to Members of Parliament demanding reform of our animal cruelty laws, which have changed very little since 1892.

There are currently two private members’ bills before Parliament to reform the Criminal Code sections on animal cruelty.

Bill C-373, introduced by Mark Holland, M.P. for Ajax-Pickering, is a comprehensive bill that not only increases penalties, but also closes off the many loopholes that allow animal abusers to walk away scot-free. Currently only one quarter of 1 % of animal cruelty complaints actually result in conviction.

Bill C-373 has the support of such major animal welfare organizations as the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies (CFHS), the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA).

However, hunting and animal industry groups are supporting rival Bill S-213, which substantially keeps in place laws from 1892. This bill, introduced by Senator John Bryden, is opposed by the major animal welfare organizations.

What can you do?

To learn about the differences between Bill C-373 and Bill S-213, read Mark Holland’s article which was published in the September 2007 issue of Canadian Pets & Animals Magazine.

Inform yourself about animal cruelty issues and why Canadian law needs to change.

Share your views with your MP, and tell him or her that you want to see an effective bill passed.

Write to newspapers and discuss the issue with friends and on online forums.

Write to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and tell him that you are not satisfied with Bill S-213.

Write to the Senators and urge them not to pass S-213 in its present form when it is reintroduced under a new number in the new session of Parliament.

Visit Mark Holland’s website for their contact information.

A Scarborough homeowner who spent 10 years cultivating a native plant garden of more than 150 species says Toronto bylaw officers went well beyond their authority by chopping it down without warning last week. Deborah Dale returned home from work last Tuesday evening to find the plants removed from in front of her home.

“I called the police because my garden had been vandalized. It’s not the first time I’ve had plants stolen, but to have the entire garden been taken away … After 10 years it’s not funny in the least,” said Ms. Dale, a former president of the North American Native Plant Society.

City officials confirmed yesterday they were responsible for removing the garden, which was on both Ms. Dale’s property and on the city-owned boulevard, saying they had received complaints that the garden had become unruly and offensive. The cost, about $200, will be added to her property taxes.

The Toronto Municipal Code requires all lawns to be kept trimmed to 20 centimetres or less. Natural gardens, those of free grown plants native to the area, are exempt. But Bill Blakes, the area’s manager of municipal licensing and standards, said the city rarely issues such exemptions. In Scarborough, he issues about 12 a year.

Ms. Dale said the city had no right to deem her property an eyesore simply because they didn’t recognize the plants she was growing.

“The city not only destroyed flowering plants and plants that were setting seed for use by the North American Native Plant Society in their fundraising efforts, but they also removed shrubs, a red oak tree, and even the sign indicating that it was a natural, pesticide-free garden,” she wrote in an e-mail. She listed Cardinal Flowers that attracted hummingbirds and Butterfly Milkweed — finally in full bloom after years of growth — as some of the casualties.

A 2003 complaint about her garden was dismissed, Ms. Dale said. On June 26, the city received a new complaint. She received an infraction notice the next week, she said.

“I know the neighbours complain. I’ve complained about them, they’ve been hacking at my hedge. The city can’t do anything about that. Apparently they can do something like enter private property and destroy my garden,” Ms. Dale said.

Mr. Blakes said the city responds to complaints about unruly gardens and lawns with an “advisory letter”, and then a second warning before sending in the mowers. Ms. Dale said she’s filing a grievance against the city to recoup the cost of her garden, approximately $10,000.

“That’s 10 years of work. I don’t have the time or the money to put back into recreating that garden from scratch. It took years, and it took a lot of courage. When you have a blank slate like that, just digging the first hole and knowing you’re going to be doing something a little different that not everyone is going to understand, it’s very difficult.”

Meanwhile, Ms. Dale is still upset at the loss of her personal nature project. “The city hasn’t responded to my complaints about this. They haven’t even acknowledged they’ve done it. I explained to the bylaw officer again that it’s a native plant garden and it’s exempt from any bylaws. There are no weeds at all in the garden. I invited them to come out and look at it. And that’s the last I’d ever heard.”

When Toronto Humane Society investigator Tre Smith learned this week that his licence had been temporarily suspended, pending review of an ugly confrontation with the owner of a dog whose life Mr. Smith had just saved, the incident underlined a murky no-man’s-land familiar to non-police law-enforcement officials.

And with Canada’s archaic animal-cruelty laws poised to leapfrog from the 19th century to the 21st, the altercation provides a snapshot of difficulties looming for the men and women who enforce those laws.

Nowhere more so than in Ontario, whose animal-welfare regulations are by every estimate the weakest in the country. The industrial and financial heart of the country is also behind most states in the US.

That could change. Provincial politicians of all stripes, including the governing Liberals, appear certain to raise animal rights in the election campaign this fall. A further sign of the times: A workshop at the Law Society of Upper Canada, a first, will examine the law and animal rights.

But the big change is likely to be in Ottawa, where two competing pieces of legislation are currently before the House of Commons. Both would amend the federal Criminal Code to make cruelty to domestic animals an indictable offence rather than a summary one.

And while tougher animal-cruelty laws are decades overdue in the view of Hugh Coghill, chief inspector for the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, he wonders how the province’s more than 170 investigators can be expected to deal with offenders facing years in a penitentiary, rather than a small fine or - rarely - a brief spell behind bars.

“Indictable offences are arrestable offences,” Mr. Coghill said.

“That means an SPCA officer would theoretically have to arrest the individual, take him or her to the police station to be fingerprinted, photographed and entered into CPIC [Canadian Police Information Centre, the national database that records criminal charges and convictions].

“Well, we don’t provide handcuffs or handguns or nightsticks to our officers, and we don’t provide them with the training to arrest people. Nor does any SPCA or humane society across Canada.”

Laws in effect since 1892 decree that a Canadian can inflict on a pet the worst kind of suffering imaginable and incur no more than six months in jail, a $2,000 fine and a maximum two-year ban on owning animals.

Two bills are now before the Commons. One is Bill C-373, tabled by Liberal MP Mark Holland, which has passed its first reading and, along with severely toughening sanctions for abusing animals, aims to redefine them as sentient beings rather than objects.

The other initiative - Bill S-213, from Liberal Senator John Bryden - doesn’t go that far, and in the view of its critics would still leave gaping loopholes in the law. But because it has the Harper government’s backing and has now passed both the Senate and second reading in the Commons, Bill S-213 may be the one that takes effect.

Even with the way things are, he said, laying criminal charges for animal cruelty - 385 were laid province-wide last year - is expensive and cumbersome.

“The OSPCA act only gives us the power to write orders, it’s ineffective and it’s outdated,” said Tre Smith.

“We’d like to see the federal laws toughened but also the provincial ones so we can hit [miscreants] in the pocketbook right away.”

Even when orders are issued, one in four are contested via the Animal Care Review Board, a quasi-judicial government-appointed referee.

The society’s files bulge with numbers. Each year, more than 1,000 investigations are launched citywide, and each year most perpetrators receive no more than a warning. In the first quarter of this year, the society was able to lay just four criminal charges.

Our laws protect anyone who wants to abuse an animal.

Source: Timothy Appleby, The Globe and Mail, August 11, 2007

Meanwhile, at the provincial level, Bob Runciman (MPP - Leeds & Grenville) introduced a members’ bill in 2007 which would increase penalties for animal abuse to terms of up to 2 years, $60,000 in fines, and a lifetime ownership ban.

This was sadly among the items left wagging in the breeze when Premier Dalton McGuinty decided to end the legislative session 3-1/2 weeks ahead of schedule. Runciman’s bill took a back seat to the McGuinty crew’s overwhelming desire to get the hell out of Dodge and go blow some of that swag snagged the previous Christmas when they awarded themselves salary, RRSP and severance hikes totalling 31 per cent.

Runciman reintroduced the bill in December, 2007, and it is slated to be looked at in spring, 2008.

Windsor Star

What Can You Do?

Tell the Ontario government and Premier McGuinty that tougher animal cruelty laws are long overdue.

Sign the petition.