Bill S-203 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals)
Senate bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 16, 2007
- Debated in principleNov. 12, 2007
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberNov. 26, 2007
- Passed the second chamberApril 9, 2008
- Became lawApril 17, 2008
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- John G. BrydenSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Charles Hubbard2 interventions in debateHe introduces the bill and states it has broad support across the House.
- Kevin Sorensonrises with pleasure to speak to the bill and notes constituent interest in it.
- Roger ValleyHe urges support for the bill to make actual changes to animal cruelty laws.
- Mr. Richard HarrisHe states he will support the bill after hearing from constituents.
- Steven FletcherHe states his support for the bill's objective to deter and punish animal cruelty.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
89% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (2,041 words introduced, 1,268 passed).
minor changeintent kept
The bill passed with its text and penalties unchanged from introduction. No new provisions or alterations were made before royal assent.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes exact lists of prohibited acts and fixed numerical penalties with subjective phrases that require judgment calls. This leaves room for argument over what counts as unnecessary or reasonable while keeping core offences and sentences relatively clear.
Open to argument
“unnecessary pain, suffering or injury”
The word 'unnecessary' introduces a subjective standard that depends on context and values rather than an objective test.“the court considers appropriate”
This phrase grants the court open-ended discretion over the length of prohibition orders without fixed criteria.“failed to exercise reasonable care or supervision”
Reasonable care is an undefined standard that invites factual disputes over what level of attention was required.“suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care”
Suitable and adequate are qualitative terms without measurable benchmarks, allowing differing interpretations.
Clear-cut
“imprisonment for a term of not more than five years”
The maximum term is stated as a fixed number, leaving no ambiguity about the upper limit.“second or subsequent offence, for a minimum of five years”
The minimum prohibition period is triggered by an objective count of prior convictions.“kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures cattle”
The prohibited actions are enumerated in a closed list of concrete verbs.
Discretion. Courts decide the duration of ownership bans and whether costs are readily ascertainable; no powers are delegated to ministers or regulations.
Challenging the law itself. The term 'unnecessary' and the reverse onus provisions could be challenged under section 7 of the Charter for vagueness or overbreadth.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused persons can dispute whether pain was unnecessary or care was reasonable, but the closed lists of acts and evidentiary presumptions limit the scope of such arguments.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.