Barbara Yaffe
Vancouver Sun
Friday, December 20, 2002
Dickens for Parliament?
If Father Time were willing to grant you one wish for 2003, what would it be? That Saddam would retire to South Beach? That Jean Chretien would join him?
Sure, I'd wish for that. But I also wish people would become more aware of the feelings of the non-homo sapiens beings with whom we share this planet.
We're told from childhood that the way we treat those less fortunate or able than ourselves says a lot about us.
Well, the way we treat creatures who are at the full mercy of mankind also says a great deal.
My colleague, Nicholas Read, earlier this week wrote about "Dumpster Dog", an elderly Maltese needing veterinary attention, abandoned in a garbage bin.
At CBC-TV, Eve Savory, reported on how near-extinct gorillas in Cameroon are being slaughtered for food. Orphaned baby gorillas with little meat on them are left to die.
It's too bad we can't just rely on the good nature and judgment of citizens to protect animals instead of having to enact legislation to try to prevent animal cruelty.
But so be it. And that's where C-15 comes in, a federal bill to impose stiffer punishment on abusers.
At present, penalties -- six months in jail, a $2,000 fine -- are trifling. Legislation hasn't changed since 1892 when animals were thought of as property. The bill would increase prison sentences to five years and allow unlimited fines.
Rick Smith, Canadian director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, recently cited a case of a kitten burned alive and dumped on a road in Richmond Hill, Ontario. Such cases aren't isolated.
In B.C. in 2000, a Colwood man faced charges of beating a five-month-old puppy with a hammer, then burying it alive.
This year an Abbotsford slaughterhouse admitted to dropping 284 conscious turkeys into a tank of scalding water. And so on, and on.
Both the Justice Department and Senate, which have considered the animal cruelty penalties, report they've never had more mail than on this issue.
Canadians care. More and more have pets. They want proper punishment for animal abusers.
What's the big deal about passing such a bill? In response to concerns expressed by the Canadian Alliance and Conservatives that legislation might affect farm practices, assurances have been given that the measures are not directed toward animal husbandry.
Believe it or not, Ottawa's animal cruelty bill started its life all the way back in March 2001 as part of an omnibus bill, with first reading in the Commons. After second reading six months later, it went to committee.
In October, the bill was split into C-15A dealing with child pornography and C-15B, with animal cruelty and firearms. Clustering animal cruelty and firearms in one bill sounds bonkers to me but hey, what do I know?
C-15B passed third and final reading in the Commons last June, then proceeded to the Senate. It was carted off to the upper chamber's legal and constitutional affairs committee in June but when Parliament prorogued in October, C-15 "died on the order paper."
Stay with me; this nonsense isn't finished. The bill was reintroduced as C-10 a week later and referred back to the Senate committee.
On Nov. 28 it was decided -- whaddaya know -- Bill C-10 should be split, separating firearms provisions from animal cruelty measures.
Now it's the end of December and senators are on Christmas recess. Their committee, when it reconvenes, will continue studying the animal cruelty bill. Can you believe it?
In June of 2001, do you remember with what lightening speed MPs and senators legislated themselves 20-per-cent pay raises, retroactive to the previous January? That bill had wings!
Yet this government can't expeditiously respond to an issue that really matters to the public, isn't complex and is urgent.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: my savvy Yorkshire terrier, Dickens, could do a far better job in Ottawa than the self-interested louts currently in charge.
© Copyright 2002 Vancouver Sun