940 am radio tonight

[animo-aequoanimo 0]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Je ne sais pas à quelle heure est cette émission.

Listen to 940 am radio tonight

-------Original Message-------

From: Kelley
Date: 08/30/06 12:42:55
To: Kelley; Nicole Joncas; Debra
Subject: Re: Animal rights bill

Would be nice if I included the story.. here you go...

Jim Duff will be talking about this on the radio this evening he is on am 940 radio
it has to do with the animal rights bill.... very important

OTTAWA - The Conservative government has decided against re-introducing a Liberal bill from the last Parliament that would have modernized 19th century definitions of animal cruelty a decision that has angered animal-rights groups who lobbied to pass the bill for the past seven years.

The government will instead support a Liberal senator's bill, known as S-213, that focuses mostly on increasing fines and jail terms for animal cruelty offences, a spokesman for Justice Minister Vic Toews said Tuesday.

The Conservatives won't re-introduce the last Parliament's legislation, which itself was the fourth version of an animal-cruelty bill dating back to 1999, because it wasn't part of the party's platform, Mike Storeshaw said.

''S-213 is an approach we'd support,'' he said. ''We think the (penalties) that exist are too low and S-213 is a good way of handling it.''

The Senate bill, introduced in April by Liberal Senator John Bryden, would raise the maximum jail term to five years for indictable offences, higher than the current two-year maximum. The bill would also raise the maximum fine from the current $2,000 to $10,000 and allow judges to impose a lifetime ban on animal ownership for anyone convicted of animal cruelty.

Those penalties were all included in the last Parliament's legislation, which died last year after the election was called.

But the big difference, animal-rights groups said, was the parliamentary bill modernized definitions of animal cruelty that hadn't been updated since the first such law was passed in 1892. While some minor changes were made in the 1950s, they said, the Senate bill lets most of the 19th-century rules live on. For example, crimes against animals are considered property offences.

''The most unfortunate development around the whole debate ... is the introduction of Senator Bryden's bill,'' said Shelagh MacDonald, program director for the Ottawa-based Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, adding she was "enormously disappointed" with the Conservative plan.

MacDonald said the Senate bill fails to lower the high threshold that demands prosecutors prove someone intended to neglect animals, something the parliamentary bill would have done. The threshold came into play, MacDonald said, when a judge acquitted a Saskatchewan farmer charged with starving more than 30 sheep to death because the judge didn't feel the farmer intended to starve the animals.

The Senate bill would also not extend the law's protection to wild or unowned animals.

''If you can't convict to begin with, what difference does it make if the penalties are larger or smaller?'' said Cele Partap, a spokeswoman for the Toronto-based World Society for the Protection of Animals Canada.

Some had criticized the last parliamentary legislation for its potential to spark lawsuits from overzealous animal-rights groups who, they said, would go as far as making hunting and fishing illegal. Partap called that a ''radical statement,'' saying anything already lawfully regulated such as hunting and fishing would have been unaffected by the parliamentary bill.

That bill had, in various incarnations, been kicking around Parliament since 1999, yet it was never passed either because of an election call or because the parliamentary session ended. Storeshaw said he couldn't comment on animal-rights groups' specific concerns, only to say the government supported the Senate bill.

Brian Murphy, the Liberals' associate justice critic, said he was ''relatively receptive'' to the Conservatives' plans to back the Senate bill despite his preference to re-introduce the old legislation. But, he added, MPs would have the chance to make amendments to the Senate bill before it would become law, something his party would ''absolutely'' look at

[Animal 0]

Je crois qu'il y aura plusieurs articles anglos à ce sujet dans les prochains jours Cé..

En voici un autre:


Animal cruelty bill lacks teeth, say rights groups

Published: Wednesday, August 30, 2006

OTTAWA - The Conservative government has decided against re-introducing a
Liberal bill from the last Parliament that would have modernized 19th
century definitions of animal cruelty a decision that has angered
animal-rights groups who lobbied to pass the bill for the past seven years.

The government will instead support a Liberal senator's bill, known as
S-213, that focuses mostly on increasing fines and jail terms for animal
cruelty offences, a spokesman for Justice Minister Vic Toews said Tuesday.

The Conservatives won't re-introduce the last Parliament's legislation,
which itself was the fourth version of an animal-cruelty bill dating back to
1999, because it wasn't part of the party's platform, Mike Storeshaw said.

''S-213 is an approach we'd support,'' he said. ''We think the (penalties)
that exist are too low and S-213 is a good way of handling it.''

The Senate bill, introduced in April by Liberal Senator John Bryden, would
raise the maximum jail term to five years for indictable offences, higher
than the current two-year maximum. The bill would also raise the maximum
fine from the current $2,000 to $10,000 and allow judges to impose a
lifetime ban on animal ownership for anyone convicted of animal cruelty.

Those penalties were all included in the last Parliament's legislation,
which died last year after the election was called.

But the big difference, animal-rights groups said, was the parliamentary
bill modernized definitions of animal cruelty that hadn't been updated since
the first such law was passed in 1892. While some minor changes were made in
the 1950s, they said, the Senate bill lets most of the 19th-century rules
live on. For example, crimes against animals are considered property
offences.

''The most unfortunate development around the whole debate ... is the
introduction of Senator Bryden's bill,'' said Shelagh MacDonald, program
director for the Ottawa-based Canadian Federation of Humane Societies,
adding she was "enormously disappointed" with the Conservative plan.

MacDonald said the Senate bill fails to lower the high threshold that
demands prosecutors prove someone intended to neglect animals, something the
parliamentary bill would have done. The threshold came into play, MacDonald
said, when a judge acquitted a Saskatchewan farmer charged with starving
more than 30 sheep to death because the judge didn't feel the farmer
intended to starve the animals.

The Senate bill would also not extend the law's protection to wild or
unowned animals.

''If you can't convict to begin with, what difference does it make if the
penalties are larger or smaller?'' said Cele Partap, a spokeswoman for the
Toronto-based World Society for the Protection of Animals Canada.

Some had criticized the last parliamentary legislation for its potential to
spark lawsuits from overzealous animal-rights groups who, they said, would
go as far as making hunting and fishing illegal. Partap called that a
''radical statement,'' saying anything already lawfully regulated such as
hunting and fishing would have been unaffected by the parliamentary bill.

Published: Wednesday, August 30, 2006
That bill had, in various incarnations, been kicking around Parliament since
1999, yet it was never passed either because of an election call or because
the parliamentary session ended. Storeshaw said he couldn't comment on
animal-rights groups' specific concerns, only to say the government
supported the Senate bill.

Brian Murphy, the Liberals' associate justice critic, said he was
''relatively receptive'' to the Conservatives' plans to back the Senate bill
despite his preference to re-introduce the old legislation. But, he added,
MPs would have the chance to make amendments to the Senate bill before it
would become law, something his party would ''absolutely'' look at.

Ottawa Citizen

CanWest News Service 2006

[animo-aequoanimo 0]

On dirait bien, en effet !