“If you want a way to deal with puppy mills and dogfighting, and want stronger anti-cruelty laws for all animals, then we need to change our voting system to ever achieve those goals.
If you want animals to be better protected, please join us in this essential challenge – changing Canada’s electoral system.”
Animal Alliance of Canada wrote those words in October of 2016.The Animal Protection Party of Canada, the only federal political party that prioritizes animals in its sphere of concern, has been calling for electoral reform for several years. Together, we have been urging animal advocates to recognize that achieving the political goals we all have for animals (such as better laws and regulations to protect them) likely requires us to elect our representatives in a much fairer way.
Today, we make that same invitation to you. Once again, we are asking you to join us in this critical challenge to force our government to provide us with a better electoral system so we can at last achieve better protections for all animals across Canada.
We are upping our game, intensifying our efforts:
This time we are doing more than writing letters and speaking with Members of Parliament (MPs); all good strategies, but now we want to expand our efforts. The Animal Protection Party has already committed a large sum of money to a legal challenge of our current electoral system initiated by two organizations, Fair Voting BC and Springtide. Their ‘Charter Challenge for Fair Voting’ has the goal of achieving two things:
“1. To have the court rule that our current voting system contravenes the Charter;
2. To have the court order the government to adopt a voting system that complies with the Charter.”
Since September 2022 we have been able to contribute to the efforts of Fair Voting BC and Springtide, thanks to the generosity of our donors.
The case was heard, and not too surprisingly, we lost the first round. The court decided that the current electoral system does not violate our Charter rights to representation. Why were we not surprised? Because it is difficult to break the inherent inertia of the status quo.
The next step is an appeal. And one is already underway.
This time we are participating more actively. We won’t be silent partners anymore, but will intervene directly in the appeal of the court case known as: ‘Fair Voting BC v. AG Canada’. The Animal Protection Party has already retained lawyers to represent us, from the Toronto firm of Aird & Berlis.
We need your help.
Legal challenges and appeals in court are expensive undertakings. But, our decades of experience have convinced us that nothing short of a more equitable electoral system will allow us to achieve meaningful progress to protect and save animals.
Why do we need a new electoral system so desperately?
Right now, under First-Past-the-Post, in the ridings where animal-using industries are economically important, the representatives elected to serve those ridings are highly motivated to oppose meaningful improvements to animal protection. That’s because the animal-using industries fear any elevation of the legal status of animals. They know that once precedents are set to benefit one species of animal, such as dogs exploited in puppy mills, that pigs who are used for breeding and who endure even worse conditions might also benefit from those laws.
Political parties of all leanings that hope to form government need to win those ridings. So again and again we’ve seen political parties, right-wing and left-wing, pander to animal agriculture and the hunting/fishing lobby in order to win those seats in government.
Animal advocates are not concentrated in specific ridings:
Those of us who want better regulations to protect animals are not concentrated in geographic areas and ridings. We are spread out across the nation so have little chance of concentrating our votes in ridings where we can elect strong representatives to promote better laws for animals. Even when we are fortunate enough to see principled representatives elected, such as MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, we don’t see them getting the support of their party leaders for their animal-friendly initiatives. That’s likely because the party leader is more concerned about losing those ridings where slaughterhouses, animal-using farms, and animal research facilities are located.
With one of the forms of Proportional Representation, the votes of those of us who want better for animals would be counted together and our proportion of the national vote would gain us a fairer proportion of representatives to be sent to government. This could change everything. In nations like New Zealand and the Netherlands, where we see better animal protection laws, we also see that each of these nations uses one of the forms of Proportional Representation to elect their governments.
A sad history of the effects of First-Past-the-Post on Canada’s laws:
There is a long history in Canada of progressive Members of Parliament doing good work to sponsor bills that would improve legal protections for animals. Note that not one of those bills would have eliminated the various animal-using industries like animal agriculture, animal research, and sport hunting and fishing. The previous attempts would have improved regulations to prevent some of the worst abuses, bringing Canadian standards up to a level more similar to more progressive westernized nations. But, in every case, those bills were defeated.
For example, in 1999, Bill C-17, a bill designed to modernize animal protections in Canada’s Criminal Code was introduced by then Justice Minister, Anne McLellan, Unfortunately, all bills were scrapped when an election was called and Parliament was dissolved.
In 2005, MP Mark Holland introduced Bill C-50, an Act to amend the Criminal Code in respect of cruelty to animals. This bill was defeated. A bill introduced in the Senate, which appeared to be a rival to the Mark Holland bill, did pass. Unfortunately this bill, described by MP Holland as a placebo, has had no meaningful effect on animal protection. The bill increased penalties for the worst offences, but left in place all of the loopholes and weak regulations that make it highly unlikely that offenders will be charged in most cases. It was window dressing and not much more, which is likely why this bill did pass – because it is ineffective and does not change the status quo.
Many of us dared to hope when MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith introduced Bill C-246, The ‘Modernizing Animal Protections Act’. But this bill too was defeated in 2016. MP Erskine-Smith is a Liberal MP, yet the entire federal Liberal cabinet voted to defeat the bill, a sign that the party leader, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, had signaled his opposition to the bill. The bill was not even given the courtesy of being sent to a committee for discussion and debate.
Advocacy alone did not work:
The ‘Modernizing Animal Protections Act’ was supported by animal advocates Canada-wide. There was a variety of excellent campaigns conducted by a vast number of advocates to gain support for this bill.
But Bill C-246 was also vigorously opposed by animal-using industries and their supporters. MPs who represent ridings where sport hunting and fishing, and animal agriculture are economic drivers spoke in the House of Commons, eliciting fear that their own uses of animals would be criminalized. In truth, the bill would not have done so but would have provided more meaningful protections from the worst abuses that are too often inflicted on animals in those industries. But even this was too much to ask for, according to the majority of members of the House of Commons. The bill was defeated and once again, no progress was made.
The Lesson:
There is no reason to expect any meaningful difference as long as Canada continues to use First-Past-the-Post to elect our governments.
And that is why the Animal Protection Party of Canada is appealing the court decision to reject ‘The Charter Challenge for Fair Voting’.
We thank Fair Voting BC and Springtide for their foresight in using this approach to end First-Past-the-Post in Canada. Nothing else has worked, and the Charter Challenge is an innovative way to approach the issue.
And, so, we will not only support the appeal of the first court decision, we will now participate more actively, through the Animal Protection Party, as interveners. Interveners can strengthen court cases and bring more might to the effort.
But we can’t do this without you!
Please – if you care for animals – take this next step in fighting for them.
Donate to support our appeal. Donate to help us fund our lawyers so they will have all the tools they need to fight hard.
This appeal is important to animals:
We can’t rescue our way out of the terrible state of things for animals. We can’t beg our way to better laws for animals. We can’t fundraise enough to reach even a quarter of the animals who desperately need our help. Of course, we and our allies will continue those kinds of efforts, knowing that we do save so many animals, and that every one of those animals is worthy of our care and help.
But for meaningful, lasting and wide-spread change – to reach animals across the nation – we need far better laws, regulations, and policies. We need a renewed and enlightened cultural understanding of who animals are, and to see them as far more than mere ‘resources’, or even worse, as pests or enemies to be eliminated.
For this, we need better governments. And for this, we need a new electoral system.
Please – join us in our appeal. Donate what you can to make our fight in court an effective one.
With Gratitude,
Liz White and Lia Laskaris
Resources:
https://www.charterchallenge.ca/the_plan
https://www.animalprotectionparty.ca/electoral-reform-for-the-animals/
http://www.animalalliance.a/electoral-reform-needed/
