# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Protection Legislation - Assignment 2 - Jenny Dinham.docx

# data[].attributes.headline
Image: An undercover investigation discovered what appears to be horrific abuse of chickens at a farm in British Columbia, Canada between May and June 2017.

# data[].attributes.subject
Image: An undercover investigation discovered what appears to be horrific abuse of chickens at a farm in British Columbia, Canada between May and June 2017.

# data[].attributes.body
This image demonstrates how animals are often viewed as property and therefore commonly mistreated. This image is a reflection of why animal protection legislation needs to exist; but that the laws need to do more to ensure their protection, and the punishment of those who abuse them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Image: Quebec is Canada’s puppy mill capital due to the poor legislation and enforcement of commercial dog breeding operations.

# data[].attributes.subject
Image: Quebec is Canada’s puppy mill capital due to the poor legislation and enforcement of commercial dog breeding operations.

# data[].attributes.body
This photo shows an image taken at a puppy mill in Quebec, Canada. It is images like these that aren’t widely circulated or talked about nearly enough, as they still exist today. Most people are not aware of the existence of puppy mills, or even if they are, the extent of the conditions that animals are bred and brought up in aren’t common knowledge; all in the name of profit. It is because of cases like this that amendments were initially made to the Criminal Code to protect animals, but more needs to be done.

# data[].attributes.headline
Image: Canadian Animal Protection Laws Rankings, 2017

# data[].attributes.subject
Image: Canadian Animal Protection Laws Rankings, 2017

# data[].attributes.body
This image goes hand in hand with a written report that puts each Canadian province into a specific group or tier that represents the Animal Legal Defence Fund’s annual ranking of animal protection laws that exist within each province.  http://aldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2017-Canadian-Rankings-Report.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: An Update on Canadian Animal Protection Legislation by Gartner and Associates: Animal Law

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: An Update on Canadian Animal Protection Legislation by Gartner and Associates: Animal Law

# data[].attributes.body
This article is regarding Bill C-246 that was introduced by Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith as a private member’s bill on February 26th, 2016. This article speaks to the challenges that those fighting to make changes to the existing animal protection legislation have been met with and continue to be met with. This Bill, along with its predecessors, was defeated. Although it still refers to animals as property, it is a step in the right direction, as it speaks to animals being deserving of legal protection and would increase the existing penalties to breaking these laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
-The Modernizing Animal Protections Act
Bill C-246, the Modernizing Animal Protections Act ("Bill") is an Act to amend the Canadian Criminal Code ("Code"), the Fisheries Act, the Textile Labelling Act, the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. The Bill was introduced by liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith ("Erskine-Smith), for Beaches East Yok, as a private member's bill on February 26 th, 2016.

This Bill is the first of its kind to provide substantive changes to animal protection legislation in over a century. In fact, up until now, sadly, Canada has lagged behind other developed countries and has some of the weakest animal protection legislation. Canada's animal welfare laws have not substantively changed since 1892. Canada needs to make legislative changes as this is not aligned with the majority of the Canadian population's values toward animal protection.

Presently, the Bill is in its second reading as of May 9, 2016. If it proceeds to committee this fall, Erksine-Smith has agreed to consult with stakeholders on improving the language of the Bill. As he stated, "If we have concerns about unintended consequences in the language, my intention is not to affect accepted animal-use practices, so let's fix the language so it doesn't."

The Bill consolidates three pieces of legislation and aims to achieve the following: 1) A ban on the importation of shark fins. 2) A ban on the importation and sale of cat and dog fur, and a requirement to label the source of fur. 3) Modernize existing animal cruelty offences in the Code.

A Ban on the Importation of Shark Fins:

The Bill aims to put an end to the cruel practice of shark finning, that is, the importation of shark fins that have been removed from a shark carcass and its dead body is discarded back into the ocean. More than 100 million sharks are killed every year with fins from up to 73 million sharks used for shark fin soup (a delicacy in the Chinese community). Although shark finning has been illegal since 1994, importing fins from other places without regulations is permitted. In fact, Canadians represent 1.5 to 2% of the global market. This issue was previously brought to the attention of the House of Commons in 2013, but was narrowly defeated at second reading by just five votes. In a 2013 poll, 81% of Canadians supported a ban against shark fin importation.

A Ban on the Importation of and Sale of Cat and Dog Fur and Source Labelling:

The Bill would follow in line with the European Union, Australia and the United States, by banning the sale of dog and cat fur and require source-fur labelling for companies in Canada. Unfortunately, Canada does not have any restrictions on fur imports, except for endangered species. In fact, the Canadian Textile and Labeling Act 's requirement is that fur products be labeled "fur." Industry Canada reports that 60% of all fur garments that are imported to Canada come from China with trade worth approximately $12 million annually.

In 2010, the U.S. tightened its ban by requiring that all fur products be labeled for country of origin and species. Unfortunately, Canada has no similar requirements and thus has become a dumping ground for cat and dog fur. Furthermore, dogs and cats used for this purpose have been documented to live in horrific conditions: cramped and filthy cages, killed by strangulation and other inhumane methods of slaughter. Further, their pelts are often a byproduct of the cat and dog meat industry. A Toronto Star investigation in 2012 revealed that cat and dog fur in Canada is used for trim on coats, lining in children's books, toys, etc. Clear labelling laws and a cat and dog fur ban will help stop the suffering of countless beloved companion animals for fashion.

Fortunately, there has been wide support towards the Bill's efforts to ban the importation of shark fins and a ban on selling cat and dog fur and source labelling. Most of the concerns are on the meaning of the proposed changes to the Code. Specifically, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters oppose the Bill and Conservative MP Robert Sopuck has stated this part of the Bill is akin to 'a Trojan horse devised to advance a radical animal rights agenda.' Of course, this is far from the truth. In fact, the Bill does not affect hunting, fishing and farming; generally accepted animal-use practices rather it protects animals from negligent abuse and cruelty.

The Modernization of the Animal Cruelty Offences in the Canadian Criminal Code:

The Bill proposes to amend the Code to close loopholes concerning animal abuse, animal fighting and bestiality, creates a gross negligence offence for animal cruelty and would make it easier to prosecute puppy mill operations in order to prove owners wilfully neglected animals. Further, the Bill would increase the penalty for repeat animal abusers, with a lifetime ban on owning an animal for anyone convicted of animal cruelty for a second time.

These proposed amendments to the Code were originally drafted by the Department of Justice in 1999 in consultation with animal use organizations. On three separate occasions, there was near identical legislation that passed the House at third reading and passed third reading at Senate on one occasion. Similar legislation to update the cruelty provisions of the Code were also introduced to Parliament by Federal Liberals with other bills, however, defeated at Senate.

The most substantial change to the Code would be the introduction of a new offence for people who cause unnecessary suffering to an animal by gross negligence. Currently, it is a crime to cause an animal pain through "willful" neglect. This mental element makes prosecution difficult. The new standard of gross negligence would only require animal cruelty to be caused by conduct that is a marked departure from a reasonable standard of conduct. This is the standard applied to every other criminal negligence offence under the Code.

There are two terms that present the most difficultly in prosecutions for animal cruelty: "wilfully" and "unnecessarily." Currently, an offence has to be both wilful and cause unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to the animal. There may be sympathy for an animal that has suffered, but the law is only concerned with the conviction of human offenders and will not punish someone who did not intend to harm that animal.

Further, the Bill aims to update the definition of 'bestiality' to mean all sexual activity between a human and an animal. This change is necessary upon a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision that held the criminal act must require penetration. In a 6-1 decision, the court upheld an acquittal of a man charged with forcing his stepdaughter to have sexual relations with the family dog. The court said that if Parliament meant to define the crime of bestiality more broadly, it would have done so. However, Justice Abella noted in her dissenting opinion that to limit the charge of bestiality to only sexual intercourse with animals, whose anatomy permits penetration, would be to erode laws that protect all animals from abuse.

Lastly, the Bill creates a new part of the Code, "Offences against animals." Although the animal cruelty provisions are removed from the property section, there is resistance from those who fear that changing how animals are regarded under the law could jeopardize hunting, fishing, farming and trapping rights. Essentially, the concern is that the welfare of animals will rise to the same moral threshold as for people, however, this shift is a symbolic change that would still recognize animals are property, but different from other types of property. Specifically, it does not change animal's legal status as property; it recognizes the widespread view that animals deserve legal protection, regardless of whose property they happen to be.

In conclusion, the passage of Bill C-246 would not interfere with accepted animal use practices in Canada. However, those who oppose the Bill are concerned these new offences will result in frivolous charges. For example, methods of slaughter for agriculture to cooking lobster by placing them alive in a boiling pot of water. The new test of "brutally or viciously" forces the court to consider the method of killing chosen and whether there is a lawful excuse. Lawful excuse is not defined in the Bill and neither is "recklessly." Further, opponents argue that the interpretation of these provisions will be left in the hands of the courts, which will lead to the criminalizing sporting, agricultural, commercial, scientific and religious activities involving animals. However, the Department of Justice, explained these amendments would not impact lawful activities involving animals. The proposed amendments would operate similarly to existing sections of the Code. It is time to update the Code so that it is in line with Canadian values. Recently, an Environics poll revealed that ninety-two per cent of Canadians surveyed agreed the Code should be updated to make it easier to convict people who commit acts of cruelty to animals.

Lastly, the Bill is a positive step to modernize animal protection legislation in Canada and has put animal welfare issues to the forefront of federal politics. Although Prime Minister Trudeau has vocally opposed the passage of the Bill, perhaps due to the pressure from opposition groups such as hunters, anglers, farmers, the fur industry, sport fisherman, etc., other liberal politicians have vocalized their support. Further, animal protection legislation will eventually be updated so that Canadian laws are aligned with Canadian values and we can be proud of the treatment of our fellow animals. It may be that incremental steps should be taken, for example, the shark fin ban and ban on cat fur first, and the more contentious but equally important legislation to update our archaic animal cruelty laws in the Code is next. Although it may take more time, social pressure, and consensus building with the stakeholders, these changes will happen one day. The passage of this Bill would require wide support from members of Parliament and the Senate to become law.

As you take the time to read this article, please consider taking action by educating others, sharing posts of these needed changes on social media, signing petitions such as change.org or creating your own, writing to your local MP, and vocalizing your support for the Bill. You can make a difference. As Erkskine-Smith stated well, 'Canadians are compassionate people who care about animals and our laws should reflect our values.' We should applaud MP Erksine-Smith for his ambitious efforts to introduce modern animal protection legislation in Canada.

Suzana Gartner, J.D., LL.M. (ADR)
Gartner & Associates Animal Law
Research Assistant:
Maxine Jagdeo Summer law student
Bill C-246, Modernizing Animal Protections Act, online: Open Parliament < https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-246/>.

Members of Parliament spar over animal welfare Bill C-246, online: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/animal-welfare-bill-canada-1.3558210. There is doubt the Bill will pass due to contentious issues related to updating the animal cruelty provisions in the Code (discussed later in the paper).

Graham, David., How Canada gets dog and cat fur from China, online: Toronto Star < https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2012/06/30/how_canada_gets_dog_and_cat_fur_from_china.html>

Office of MP Robert Sopuck, Legal Analysis of Bill C-246, online: Keep Canada Fishing < http://www.keepcanadafishing.com/legal-analysis-of-bill-c-246-pmb-by-liberal-mp-nathaniel-erskine-smith/>

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Update on Canadian Animal Protection Legislation - Gartner & Associates, Animal Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Modernizing Animal Protections Act Bill C-246, the Modernizing Animal Protections Act ("Bill") is an Act to amend the Canadian Criminal Code ("Code"), the Fisheries Act, the Textile Labelling Act, the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

# data[].attributes.headline
Website: The Animal Protection Party of Canada

# data[].attributes.subject
Website: The Animal Protection Party of Canada

# data[].attributes.body
The Animal Protection Party of Canada is North America’s first Federal Political Party dedicated solely to the protection of all animals and the environment. One of their primary focuses is to push to make changes to the existing animal protection legislation in the Criminal Code of Canada.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Protection Party of Canada - Animal Protection Party Of Canada

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal Protection Party of Canada is the first political party in North America dedicated to representing the interests of all animals at the municipal, provincial, and federal level.

# data[].attributes.headline
Government of Canada: Justice Laws Website

# data[].attributes.subject
Government of Canada: Justice Laws Website

# data[].attributes.body
This is a link to the Act to amend Sections 444 to Sections 447 of the Criminal Code: the legislation pertaining to animal protection in Canada that was brought to Royal Assent in 2008. It has been over 10 years since any changes were made to the animal protection legislation. The animal protection legislation speaks of animals as property as opposed to animal beings, and because of this the penalties for committing acts of cruelty against animals are lenient compared to charges one would face had these acts been committed against other human beings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)

# data[].attributes.headline
Video: Parliamentary Outdoor Caucus – blocking reforms to the Canadian Criminal Code that would better protect animals from cruelty.

# data[].attributes.subject
Video: Parliamentary Outdoor Caucus – blocking reforms to the Canadian Criminal Code that would better protect animals from cruelty.

# data[].attributes.body
This video draws attention to one of the reasons proposed amendments to animal protection legislation, potentially are met with the degree of challenges they’re met with. They speak of a private, secret, membership within Parliament that is coordinated with an industry backed lobby group in place to stifle animal protection and promote the killing of animals for profit and pleasure.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Please, to protect animals, help us expose the Outdoor Caucus.

# data[].attributes.body
It's time to re-evaluate our relationship with animals.

“We don’t treat animals badly because they’re property, we classify animals as property, so we can treat them badly.”

Lesli Bisgould offers a unique perspective on the laws in place regarding animal protection in Canada. She gets into detail about why the current laws are useless in wholly protecting the lives of animals; and shines a light on loopholes that exist within the laws, that better protect animals’ (property) owners.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's time to re-evaluate our relationship with animals: Lesli Bisgould at TEDxUofT

# data[].attributes.headline
Video: Liz White, Leader of the Animal Protection Party of Canada

# data[].attributes.subject
Video: Liz White, Leader of the Animal Protection Party of Canada

# data[].attributes.body
This video is from Liz White’s meeting in a Prohibited Animals Review in front of the Licensing and Standards Committee. It demonstrates how difficult it is to make changes relative to the protection of animals, as the majority of people who are in positions of power don’t view animals as anything but property. Liz White is forced to bring facts and statistics to the table that relate to how having and slaughtering chickens in backyards have adverse affects on the human population and environment; in an effort to get them to pay attention and listen to how inhumane this is for the animals involved. She is met with a rude and insensitive response in spite of this, but had she only come to the table with facts about the inhumane treatment of chickens, they wouldn’t have listened to her at all.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Liz White, Leader, Animal Protection Party of Canada