Cruelty to Animals Bill

Timeline: How a bill became a 6-year political football

Markholland.ca, MP for Ajax-Pickering Nov/05 ... It’s taken nearly six years since the federal government first introduced revisions to the Criminal Code dealing with animal cruelty. A revised bill is still only at first reading stage. For years, the bill was controversial because of differences between animal welfare groups and those who use animals for their livelihood or sport. Later, it became a political football, literally tossed back and forth between the House of Commons and the Senate. Here’s a condensed legislative timeline of why it’s taken so long:

• December 1, 1999 - Bill C-17 is introduced as an omnibus bill to reform a number of unrelated sections of the Criminal Code, including cruelty to animals. The bill is debated at second reading on Sept. 26, 2000, but dies when the federal election is called for November 27, 2000.
• The legislation is reintroduced on March 14, 2001 as Bill C-15, but in September 2001, after debating it at second reading, the House instructs the Justice Committee to split it into two bills.
• In October 2001, the legislation is split into two separate bills, C-15A and C-15B. The portion dealing with animal cruelty is included in C15B, along with unrelated changes affecting firearms.
• In December 2001, the Justice Committee reports C-15B back to the House with a number of amendments. Throughout the winter and spring of 2002, it is debated at report and third reading stages, and is finally passed by the House of Commons on June 4, 2002, but it must go to the Senate.
• In September 2002, Parliament prorogues, effectively wiping the slate clean of all legislation currently in progress. On October 9, 2002, Bill C-15B is reintroduced as C-10 and deemed to have passed all stages in the House. It returns to the Senate.
• As a result of opposition to certain provisions in the bill from various animal users and industries, the bill has become controversial. It is debated extensively by the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs into the winter of 2002-03. That committee wants the bill split again to separate the animal cruelty and firearms provisions. In a precedent-setting move, the Senate indicates it will only pass C-10A (the firearms portion), and it wants more time to debate C-10B (the animal cruelty portion). The Senate sends a note to the House asking that the House split the bill in two.
• Finally, the Senate passes C-10B on May 29, 2003, but it makes a number of amendments. As legislation must be passed in identical forms by both houses of Parliament, the bill is returned to the House to seek concurrence on the Senate amendments.
• On June 6, 2003, the House passes a revised bill accepting some but not all of the Senate’s amendments. A particular sticking point is whether there should be an explicit exemption allowing traditional aboriginal hunting practices, even when these might be considered cruel. The Department of Justice insists that such an amendment isn’t required, because aboriginal treaty rights are already protected by the Constitution.
• In September 2003, the Senate debates the revised bill and passes it, but insists on including certain amendments that were rejected by the House. The House debates these changes, but on September 29, 2003, it votes to send the bill back to the Senate, insisting on the version that was passed on June 6, 2003.
• In November 2003, Parliament prorogues and again the legislative slate is wiped clean. On March 8, 2004, under a new Justice Minister and new Prime Minister, the bill is again reintroduced, this time as C-22. The new bill incorporates the June 6, 2003 amendments, and it is deemed to have passed all three readings in the House. It returns to the Senate, where it is stalled.
• On June 28, 2004, there is a general election resulting in a new Parliament and a Liberal minority government. All legislation still in progress in the previous Parliament dies, including Bill C-22.
• Fall of 2004: MP Mark Holland and others, including organizations representing both animal welfare and animal user interests urge Justice Minister Irwin Cotler to reintroduce Bill C-22 without making any substantive changes, except to address the issue of traditional aboriginal hunting.
• February 3, 2005: Liberal Senator John G. Bryden introduces bill S-24 in the Senate. This bill would raise penalties for animal cruelty, but it ignores most of the other provisions of the government’s bill, deviating from the consensus that has finally been achieved between animal welfare and animal user groups.
• May 16, 2005: Nearly a year after the general election, the Justice Minister introduces Bill C-50 in the House. This is essentially the same as C-22, except that a change has been made to address the aboriginal hunting question and to reaffirm Constitutional treaty rights. As of yet, Bill C-50 has not been debated.