PROTECTING ANIMALS
The Quebec government wants to shed the province’s image as the animal-abuse capital of Canada. Bill 54, now before the National Assembly, lives up to its promise to do just that.
However, the Act to Improve the Legal Situation of Animals, as it is known, falls short of Quebec’s goal to become a leader in animal welfare in this country. If that is to be rectified, it will be necessary to bring modifications to the legislation before it is put to a final vote.
Bill 54, as is, marks a big improvement on the status quo. It includes stiffer fines of up to $250,000 for animal cruelty, and introduces the possibility of jail time for repeat offenders. It provides for a more rigorous permits system for pet stores, recognizes animals not as property but as “sentient beings,” and more.
These are welcome measures in a province that’s become notorious for disturbing images of emaciated animals rescued from puppy mills and fur farms. Quebec regularly ranks last among provinces in a benchmark list of worst jurisdictions for protection laws compiled by the U.S.-based Animal Legal Defense Fund. In the group’s 2015 report, only Nunavut ranks lower.
Recent headlines highlight the need for action. In one case, hundreds of exotic birds were seized from a Montreal pet store and breeding facility after an investigation found they were lacking critical care. Some birds had already died. The SPCA said limitations in existing animal-welfare legislation prevented authorities from intervening sooner.
Agriculture Minister Pierre Paradis has acknowledged that Quebec is “about 20 years behind the rest of the civilized world” when it comes to animal welfare, and expressed confidence that Bill 54 would place the province among the best performers, like Manitoba and British Columbia. However, the legislation — now under review by a National Assembly committee — misses the mark as written.
The main problem is Bill 54 does not cover all animals. It applies to cats and dogs, for example, but not to exotic species like the birds seized at the Montreal pet shop. That seizure was conducted under the Criminal Code of Canada because of gaps in provincial oversight that continue to exist under the new bill.
The lack of comprehensive legislation is problematic. For one thing, it complicates the work of inspectors. One can imagine them arriving at a scene where there is cause for animals to be seized, but having to leave some behind, depending on the species.
When it comes to stopping cruelty against animals, there should be no cause for confusion or hesitation on the part of the authorities. Bill 54 is good. But it can — and should — be made better.