Justice committee  I always think it's appropriate to give judges that discretion. If they think five years, 10 years or a lifetime is appropriate, I think that's right.

Justice committee  We would absolutely support that type of approach. I think that having some body to examine these issues from a bird's eye view and to think more holistically about how we can integrate animal welfare and protection issues into many facets of our federal laws, not just the Criminal Code, is very important.

Justice committee  There have been consultations and reports and draft legislation tabled and introduced and debated, including before this committee and in the Senate, repeatedly over the last 20 years. If you look at the history of those various pieces of animal cruelty legislation, what you see are provisions addressing neglect loopholes in the Criminal Code right now.

Justice committee  I would certainly have fewer concerns with the existence of subsection 447(3) at all if that last part requiring their destruction were removed. I think the problem here is not that they're being seized, which I think is something that everybody supports, removing them from that situation.

Justice committee  Right, to include dogs or other animals.

Justice committee  Where you're going with this makes a lot of logical sense. The distinction in this subsection of the Criminal Code between birds and other animals doesn't seem to cohere with the rest of what this committee, and this legislation, and what the Criminal Code itself say in distinguishing between them.

Justice committee  Good morning. Thank you. I am an animal protection lawyer and the executive director of Animal Justice. We work to ensure that animals have a voice in Canada's legal and political systems. We work with legislators and citizens to improve laws protecting animals and we push for the vigorous enforcement of laws that are already on the books.

Justice committee  Thank you.