BAN SHOCK COLLARS.CA’S REPLY TO THE MINISTER’S RESPONSE TO THE PETITION TO BAN SHOCK COLLARS IN CANADA
We would like to thank the Minister for her response to our petition calling for a ban on shock collars in Canada. We just wish the Minister had taken the time to actually consider our Petition instead of replying with nothing more than a form letter.
It is disappointing to the people who invested many hours into the E-Petition process only to be dismissed with an ‘it’s not my job’ reply when clearly it is. If the Minister is sincere when she states ‘animal cruelty laws should send a clear message that animal cruelty is totally unacceptable in our society’ and had taken but a few minutes to seriously consider our plea then it would have become obvious that a simple addition to the Criminal Code would have accomplished this. Instead the Minister chose to abdicate responsibility and push it off on the Provincial Governments when our petition was clearly addressed to Parliament. It would require the following addition to the definition of cruelty to animals in section 445.1 (1) of the Criminal Code:
(f) uses an electric shock collar on a companion animal or, being the owner, permits an electric shock collar to be used on such an animal.
Minister Ray-Bould pointed out, "The law also prohibits any conduct that causes an animal pain, suffering or injury for an illegitimate purpose, or that causes pain, suffering or injury for a legitimate purpose but where other means were reasonably available that could have achieved that purpose with less, or no, pain, suffering or injury to the animals". This statement alone, leaves no place in Canadian society for the use of electric shock collars. The fact that reliable painless alternatives are reasonably available means there is no legitimate circumstance where an electric shock collar is required. By abdicating the responsibility onto taxpayers of individual territories and provinces to prosecute each case individually makes a mockery of the federal criminal code provisions. Either it is or isn't, an offence to cause unnecessary pain, suffering and injury to an animal. If it is, electric shock collars by their very nature, purpose and intent need to be banned by the Federal Government.
I hope that this Minister’s response serves as a template to other Ministers how not to reply to the citizens of Canada who spend hours, days, weeks and months of their time to petition our Government on matters they feel very passionately about. It diminishes the entire process.
Canada's 1st e-petition tabled in the House to Ban Electric Shock Collars in Canada presented by Kennedy Stewart MP Burnaby South
Kennedy Stewart Burnaby—Douglas, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-615, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals—electric shock collars).
start of page
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to introduce a private member's bill promoting animal welfare in Canada. This bill would ban the use of harmful electric shock collars on companion animals, better known as "household pets". Using shock collars is widely recognized as causing needless pain and being cruel and inhumane, and use has been restricted in numerous other jurisdictions.
I am particularly honoured to be putting this bill forward, because it is a truly constituent-driven initiative. It is inspired by G. & A. Williams, two committed advocates from my riding of Burnaby—Douglas, who have been mobilizing concerned citizens to protect animals for more than seven years. Without a doubt, never before has my office received so many petitions and letters on a single specific issue. However, really what swung me to action is a local elementary school. Students from this school joined the chorus of voices seeking a ban on the use of these harmful shock collars.
I believe this is how our democracy should function. MPs should come here to Ottawa and put forward ideas on behalf of their community that elects them. When this happens, we are doing our duty to serve Canadians.
MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT KENNEDY STEWART PRESENTING A PETITION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS TO BAN SHOCK COLLARS IN CANADA
By Billy Shields - July 7, 2014 - Global BC
PIERREFONDS, Que. — A provincial law governing the humane treatment of animals has quietly taken effect, and it may cause some Montrealers to make changes to how they deal with their dogs.
Quebec has made it clear that dog collars must not interfere with breathing, or cause an animal any pain or injury. Full article herestart of page
Animal cruelty is addressed by the Criminal Code of Canada. Animal welfare falls under provincial jurisdiction, however the Health of Animals Act does provide authority for the Governor in Council to make regulations for the humane treatment of animals and generally govern the care, handling and disposition of animals. Additionally, the Health of Animals Regulations contains provisions for the protection of animals during loading and unloading.start of page
WHY WE NEED TO RE-WORD OUR PETITION FOR THE THIRD TIME - OUR RESPONSE TO THE MINISTER'S RESPONSE TO THE BAN SHOCK COLLAR PETITION PRESENTATION MAY 2013
Once again, Minister of Agriculture Gerry Ritz has responded to MP Kennedy Stewart's latest presentation of the 'ban shock collar' petition to Parliament. And once again, the Minister has bypassed the issue our petition raises choosing instead to focus on electric prods used on farm animals. Why would he focus on electric prods on farm animals when our petition clearly addresses the use of electric shock collars on the pet population? It may well be he wants to marry the two issues, since on its own, there is no reasonable rationale to defend electric shock collar use on pets. read morestart of page
House of Commons Debates
Ban Electric Shock Collars
June 20, 2012
Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
The first petition is from hundreds of petitioners who would like the government to ban the sale and use of shock collars on animals. They point out that the use of electric shocks on any sentient being is inhumane and poses serious risks to an animal's well-being. They point out the SPCA and Humane Societies and animal experts support that.
* * *start of page
LIBBY DAVIES, MP
EXCERPTS FROM HANSARD (June 6, 2011)
SPEAKING OUT ON: Animal Cruelty
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the first day back to present a petition in the 41st Parliament with over 1,400 signatures on an issue that is of grave concern to many Canadians concerning animal safety and well-being.
The petition calls upon Parliament to protect sentient beings in our care from needless cruelty and suffering; to ban the sale and use of electric shock devices on any animal to ensure that in that future no person will be able to purchase these kinds of tools in Canada; to recognize that the use of electric shocks as a teaching tool is barbaric and unnecessary; and to heed the advice of credible, world-renowned experts, documented evidence and scientific studies that explicitly affirm that the use of electric shock is abusive and damaging to an animal's physical and psychological well-being.
House of Commons, Ottawa K1A 0A6 Tel (613) 992-6030 Fax: (613) 995-7412 Email: email@example.com
2412 Main Street, Vancouver, V5T 3E2 Tel (604) 775-5800 Fax (604) 775-5811
We have finally received an official response from the government of Canada to our petition presented on June 6th/11. They state they have noted our concern regarding the availability and use of shock devices on animals. Yet the response stayed away from the use of shock collars and fencing used for training and controlling animals and instead focused on the use of stun guns for the slaughter of food animals. This was not our focus. It was suggested that a complete ban, in some cases, could result in less humane conditions as when rendering animals unconscious for slaughter. No mention is made of the electric shocks via collars imposed on companion animals, circus animals, racing, sporting, service and work animals, that are definitely not humane in nature. The readily available shock collar used to train and control animals, the original reason for the petition, was sidestepped. The wealth of information from world-renowned experts proclaiming electric shock collars as potentially damaging to an animal's physical and psychological well-being, was also not addressed.start of page
HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES
Ban Electric Shock Devices
March 21, 2011
Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to table a petition signed by over 550 Canadians from British Columbia and Ontario, including organizers Mr. & Mrs.Williams of Burnaby.
The petitioners point out that we are obliged to protect other sentient beings from needless cruelty and suffering. Their particular concern is the use of electric shock as an animal training tool, a practice which they name as barbaric and unnecessary.
They also point out that many experts have documented the use of electric shock as abusive and damaging to an animal's physical and psychological well-being.
The petitioners, therefore, call for a ban on the sale of electric shock devices for use on animals.
* * *
BILL SIKSAY, MP
124 Confederation Building
House of Commons, Ottawa, ON KIA 0A6
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
A B.C. couple are calling on pet lovers to unite against the use of electric shock training collars on dogs and other animals -- a cry that was heard all the way in Ottawa this week.
NDP MP Bill Siksay tabled on Monday a 500-name petition in the House of Commons.
"Animals wearing shock collars can suffer physical pain and psychological stress," said Siksay, noting that positive training methods should be encouraged.
© The Daily News (Nanaimo) 2011start of page
OTTAWA – Today Bill Siksay (Burnaby Douglas) tabled a petition in the House of Commons that calls for a ban on the sale and use of electric shock devices on animals. The petition was signed by over 500 people.
"Animals wearing shock collars can suffer from physical pain and psychological stress. Positive training methods which are kinder and more effective should be encouraged. Shock collars hurt, and they shouldn't be used on any animal for any reason," stated Siksay.
"Electrically shocking any sentient being for the purpose of control or training is abusive and unethical. It is that simple," stated Mr. & Mrs. Williams of Ban Shock Collars.start of page