Animal Cruelty - Comparing Bill C-15 with C-17

As the House of Commons broke for its' summer recess, Bill C-15, including its animal cruelty provisions, was undergoing 2nd reading debate. Similar legislation was introduced under Bill C-17 late in 1999 but died when last fall's election was called. While the two Bills are indeed alike, they are not identical. Some important revisions have been made to the current version.

Under Bill C-17 and similarly under Bill C-15 the cruelty to animals provisions have been moved from Part XI of the Criminal Code, entitled Wilful and Forbidden Acts in Respect of Certain Property, to Part V which is titled Sexual Offences, Public Morals and Disorderly Conduct. The legislative summary accompanying Bill C-17 noted, "This modification is more than merely cosmetic since it would change the way the Criminal Code regards animals in that the cruelty to animals offences would no longer be treated, in large part, as property crimes…. Thus, animals would no longer be regarded essentially as property but rather as beings that feel pain." This is confirmed in the definition of an "animal" as "a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain".

Moving the animal cruelty provisions out of Part XI has been a point of contention for livestock commodity organizations and others because it means that the rights of property protection offered under subsection 429 (2) of the Criminal Code would no longer be available. This subsection states that, "no person shall be convicted of an offence under sections 430 to 446 [which currently includes the animal cruelty clauses] where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right." "Colour of right" refers to the rights of property ownership. Under Bill C-15 only the term "lawful excuse" appears, and only in two subsections. This has not changed from the corresponding parts of Bill C-17. The original concern, therefore, remains.

Bill C-15 has attempted to address the optics of having animal cruelty lumped together with sexual offences by creating a separate section under Part V that deals with animal cruelty offences. It is titled Part V.1 "Cruelty to Animals".

Concerns were expressed, under the Bill C-17 proposal, that the terms "wilful" and "wilfully" were removed from the legislation. This has been addressed under Bill C-15 by adding the phrase "wilfully or recklessly" to the section dealing with killing or harming animals. It now reads, "Every one commits an offence who, wilfully or recklessly, …".

The apprehension around requiring only negligence to secure a conviction under Bill C-17's animal care provisions has been at least partially addressed in Bill C-15 by adding a definition for the term "negligently". "Negligently" has been defined as, "departing markedly from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use".

The animal care provisions under Bill C-17 would have allowed for conviction on the basis of any pain, suffering or injury to an animal caused by a failure to exercise reasonable care or supervision. Bill C-15 has addressed this concern by reintroducing the word "unnecessary", thereby making it an offence to "negligently cause unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal".

Another one of the contentious parts of Bill C-17 was the addition of a clause prohibiting the brutal or vicious killing of an animal regardless of whether the animal dies immediately. Concerns were expressed regarding the lack of definition for the term "brutally or viciously". This clause under Bill C-15 has not changed and no definition has been added. Therefore, the issue remains.

The definition of an animal under Bill C-15 remains the same as it was in Bill C-17. Defining an animal to include any animal that has the capacity to feel pain has been criticized as being too broad, however, no changes were made from the wording of Bill C-17.

While the Justice Department has attempted to address a number of the livestock industry's concerns with Bill C-17 through the revisions under Bill C-15, others remain. Among these are, moving the animal cruelty provisions out of Part XI of the Criminal Code and thereby losing the protection of subsection 429 (2), the definition of the term "animal", and the definition of the phrase "brutally and viciously".

For more information Bill C-15 and its accompanying legislative summary can be viewed through the Parliamentary website.