2 libéraux qui ne s'entendent pas ...

[Animal 0]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070225/animal_abuse_070225\
/20070225

J'en ai ras-le-bol d'entendre parler de cette loi ! Tous les ans, c'est la même histoire- et au final y'a rien qui bouge



Two Liberals in dogfight over animal cruelty laws



Mark Holland

Canadian Press

Updated: Sun. Feb. 25 2007 7:37 PM ET

OTTAWA — Two Liberal colleagues are in a dog fight over two different bills
aimed at cracking down on animal cruelty.

Senator John Bryden has authored a private member's bill that would
dramatically stiffen penalties for those who abuse animals.

But MP Mark Holland is urging his Liberal colleagues to defeat Bryden's
"placebo" bill, arguing that it's meaningless to impose stiffer fines and
jail terms without simultaneously closing loopholes that allow animal
abusers to escape conviction.

Indeed, Holland maintains Bryden's bill is a ruse designed to take the
pressure off parliamentarians to produce more meaningful reform of Canada's
outdated and inadequate animal cruelty laws.

Holland is urging his colleagues to support his own, more ambitious private
member's bill instead.

But Bryden has a leg up on Holland. His bill, S-213, has already been passed
by the Senate and the House of Commons will begin debating it on Monday.
Bryden believes he's got the support of the governing Conservatives and a
majority of Liberal MPs, particularly those from rural areas.

Holland's bill, C-373, hasn't even begun the legislative obstacle course.
It's stuck in the queue with other MPs' private members bills and may not
see the light of day until the fall or later.

Bryden readily admits his bill is nowhere near as ambitious as Holland's.
But he says that's deliberate, recognizing the fact that seven attempts to
modernize animal cruelty laws in the past 10 years failed precisely because
they were too ambitious.

Past bills proposed changing the status of animals and the definition of
cruelty, raising concerns of farmers, aboriginals, hunters, anglers and
researchers that all sorts of traditional practices could be rendered
illegal, from branding and castrating livestock to boiling lobster for
dinner.

Bryden said he decided to focus on the one element of previous bills that
everyone could agree with: stiffer penalties.

"All this bill is attempting to do is to give to the enforcement people, the
prosecutors and the courts some real teeth in the (existing) law . . . so
that they can jail some people, heavily fine some people and these sections
then become deterrents," Bryden said in an interview.

Currently, animal cruelty offences are punishable only on summary conviction
with maximum penalties of a $2,000 fine and/or six months imprisonment.
S-213 would allow prosecutors to proceed by way of indictment or summary
conviction, depending on the seriousness of the case, with maximum penalties
of five years imprisonment and/or a $10,000 fine.

Animal rights groups have condemned Bryden's bill and are urging MPs to
reject it in favour of Holland's. But Bryden, whose bill is backed by
universities and hunting and angling groups, argues that it's better to have
stiffer penalties than no reforms at all.

"The biggest thing that the animal rights people are saying about my bill is
that it doesn't go far enough. Well, the ones that tried to go farther
didn't get very far."

In any event, Bryden argues that nothing prevents Parliament from bringing
in comprehensive reforms - or even adopting Holland's bill - in future. In
the meantime, the deterrence effect of S-213 would give animals some
additional protection.

Holland doesn't buy it.

"To try to hold out that this is animal cruelty legislation when all of the
major animal welfare groups oppose it is despicable," he said in an
interview.

Having blocked every attempt at meaningful reform, Holland said the Senate,
through Bryden's bill, is now trying to do a "total end-run" around the will
of the elected House of Commons.

"Let's be real clear about what this is. If S-213 were passed, all of the
political will and motivation to modernize our animal cruelty laws would
pass and . . . what we would be stuck with is 18th-century laws well into
the future."

Holland's bill is identical to C-50, which was twice passed by the Commons
but blocked by the Senate. It would move animal cruelty out of the property
section of the Criminal Code, recognizing that "your family pet deserves
more protection than your dining table," and extend protection to wildlife,
not just domestic animals.

It would also increase penalties generally, including additional penalties
for wounding or killing police dogs and horses.

Holland is confident that the vast majority of MPs support his bill, having
adopted identical legislation twice in the past. But he's worried that
they'll wash their hands of the matter if they accept Bryden's bill first.

"It would be a devastating blow if it got passed."