Bill C-246: So Many Lies, So Little Time

We cannot give up! The Prime Minister has promised free votes on private members’ business and we need to keep speaking up until all MPs understand what’s in this bill. We only have until September 28th!

Click here to find out how you can help!

Written by Mary Giuffre: Since starting Ruby’s Legacy – a citizen’s movement to STOP PUPPY MILLS IN CANADA – I’ve been attentive to the inside workings of government. I have sent a lot of correspondence to elected officials (mostly without responses) and I have collected and read many response letters from those MPs that have been sent to other advocates.

The content of this back and forthing has me shaking my head in complete and utter dismay.

Nathaniel-Erskine-Smith with Dog

MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

I have been following back bencher, MP for Beaches East York ON, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith’s Bill C-246 the ‘Modernizing Animal Protections Act’ since before it was introduced in the House February 26. 2016. My associates and I sat down with him in his modest Toronto constituency office for close to two hours to discuss the plight of puppy mill dogs in this country, and perhaps it’s lofty for me to say, but I like to think that in some small way we have influenced the content of the cruelty amendments he put forward for the Criminal Code.

Despite the fact that I own a business I work at full time, I’ve made a point of becoming acquainted with the details of Bill C-246. I’ve read it and the subsequent legal critiques. I travelled to Ottawa at my own expense to be in the House of Commons for the second reading, where I witnessed and actually listened to the first hour of debate. (I can’t say as much for the few MPs that were in the House that day.) I’ve done an in depth video interview with MP Erskine-Smith and arranged for higher profile media to interview him as well. I KNOW WHAT’S IN THE BILL. So if I know what it says, why is it that so many Members of Parliament who were elected to do this job – and get paid for it – don’t appear to have a clue what it says?

Bill C-246 sets out to bring our animal welfare laws into the 21st Century through four specific areas:

  1. Close loopholes and strengthen the Criminal Code’s animal protection provisions. These changes are targeted at animal abuse, from animal fighting to deplorable puppy mill conditions.
  2. Ban the sale of cat and dog fur within Canada and require labeling of source fur.
  3. Ban the importation of shark fins
  4. Update the definition of bestiality

The politicians seem to be ignoring the bestiality issue. Little wonder, considering the recent Supreme Court ruling. Most don’t seem to have a problem with banning dog and cat fur  or stopping the importation of shark fins (more on this subject to come). I’m pleased about that. But the arguments against closing loop holes in our Criminal Code to curtail animal cruelty are ludicrous!

Can ANYBODY tell me how a country  so dedicated to equality, with a government so compassionate about its people, can possibly have it SO WRONG about updating animal cruelty provisions that are almost 125 YEARS OLD?

As I pored over letters from Members of Parliament regarding Bill C-246, I found that every one of them says something like, “…I believe in the importance of the humane treatment of animals…” or “…I support the intention of this bill, but…” BUT WHAT? If you TRULY believe this, why are you being stubborn about voting in favour of sending the bill to Committee to address any disagreements so it can then be adjusted accordingly? MP Erskine-Smith has stated time and again that he is open to amendments. Cooperation is a skill learned on the playground, so why is COLLABORATING to fix this bill for the sake of the animals so difficult?

The citizens of our country – approximately 45,400 people (92% of Canadians) who signed a Canadian petition initiated by Animal Cruelty Legislation Advocates Canada, in favour of this bill being passed – have been aligned by some MPs with the most extreme animal rights activists on the planet. We are not fanatics. We’re just regular people who won’t accept animals being beaten, battered and bruised while we use them to enhance our lives. IT’S NOT OK FOR THEM TO SUFFER NEEDLESSLY. As Nate stated in his address to the House on May 9th, “…offences against animals are wrong because it is wrong to harm animals…”


Conservative MP Robert Sopuck from Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette, MB, a self-appointed superhero (I really don’t want to see this man in tights and a cape) jumped on his Trojan Horse in May, ranting about protecting farmers, hunters and anglers, and the country has since gone quite mad.  He presented a wild and crazy story and parties on both sides of the aisle have bought in. Sopuck has people all riled up over supposition. This foolishness is being portrayed on a popular fishing show website.

Fishing Show

TV Hosts mock Bill C-246

Here’s the truth of it directly from the author of the bill, “…The purpose of this bill is not to affect accepted animal use in our society…There have been comments that I am aiming to stop hunting and fishing and that this bill would do that. It simply would not do that. There is not a single criminal lawyer in the country who suggests that would happen, and previous testimony at Committee, in the House, and the Senate, has stated absolutely the opposite…”

Gratefully, Peter Julian, MP for New Westminster-Burnaby BC and NDP House Leader, fully supports MP Erskine-Smith’s position. “…we have heard and studied the concerns raised by those who fear that provisions in this bill could inadvertently affect normal, lawful activities such as hunting and fishing. After thorough review, we are satisfied that these concerns do not stand on a solid legal foundation, as the Department of Justice has stated repeatedly and in no uncertain terms when identical provisions came before previous parliaments. However, it is important that law-abiding Canadians who fish or hunt continue to enjoy these lawful pursuits without fear or stigma.”

So, hunters and fishers, you’ll still be able to cock your shot guns and bait your hooks without fear.


Then there’s Cathy MacLeod, MP Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo BC who had this to say in her newsletter “…BCCA [BC Cattlemen’s Association] believes this bill will further increase the likelihood that Canadian Farmers and ranchers will increasingly have to defend their “right to farm” practices in court…”

Not according to Nate. “My in-laws would disown me if my changes stopped farming, fishing, or hunting, as they have owned a farm outside of Sarnia since 1834. As a lawyer, I do not believe that the Criminal Code should be used to regulate accepted practices. It is in place to punish egregious and immoral conduct in our society. Had I intended to affect farming, I would have done so through the Meat Inspection Act or the Health of Animals Act, not the Criminal Code…”


If the following argument against Bill C-246 wasn’t so pathetic it would be humorous. These self-proclaimed animal welfare experts, as well as other MPs, are saying that they know better than those people on the frontline of animal protection. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?

Robert Sopuck with Gun

MP Robert Sopuck

In MP Sopuck’s letter he states: “…in my view Canada’s existing laws already provide adequate protection for animals…” and he made similar remarks during the first hour of debate.

MP Erskine-Smith’s address to the House was clear, “… humane societies and SPCAs across the country support Bill C-246… The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies has written to every Member of Parliament in support of the bill. Each year, SPCAs and humane societies investigate more than 45,000 complaints of animal cruelty and neglect. As organizations entrusted by governments and by Canadians to enforce the law, the member societies of the CFHS regularly witness the impact of inadequate and antiquated animal cruelty sections of the Criminal Code of Canada…” I heard Nate say this… We were both in the House Mr. Sopuck.

Dr. Colin Carrie, Conservative MP for Oshawa ON, had the same argument, but his letter went on to say “…Bill C-246 also infringes on provincial jurisdiction since most animal welfare laws are developed and enforced by the provinces…” THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT HERE! Animal cruelty is already a crime in the Criminal Code. However, charges against abusers are currently typically pursued under provincial law because the loopholes in the Criminal Code are so huge that prosecutors downgrade charges so they have a chance at conviction. Additionally, convictions made at the Provincial level for offences like puppy mills only govern the province a person is convicted in. These people simply pick up and move their operations to another province and start again, and again, and again. Google the cases of April Dawn Irving and the mother/daughter team of Karin and Catherine Adams if you don’t believe me. Upgrades to the Criminal Code would stop this!

When I interviewed Nate he explained further. “…Our criminal code provisions at the federal level haven’t been updated in a serious substantive way – the offence provisions – in over 100 years, so we have archaic language in those provisions and we have provisions that Humane Societies and SPCAs have told us get in the way of enforcing the law. And we as legislators who want to treat animal welfare and animal protection seriously, these are organizations that are on the frontline and are telling us the laws need to be changed. We need to respect that and we need to change them…”


A constituent received this information in a letter from Conservative MP Todd Doherty, Cariboo-Prince George, BC, “…it would appear that Bill C-246 is going to be shelved and left to die on the Order Paper. This means that the government will not be bringing the bill forward for second reading, and therefore there will be no vote on Bill C-246…”  The Bill has already had its second reading and its first hour of debate Mr. Doherty. THERE WILL BE A VOTE at the end of the second two hours of debate at the end of September. Was there any orientation training or at least a handbook when you started this job? STOP LYING TO PEOPLE!

After several attempts to reach Liberal MP Kim Rudd, Peterborough-Northumberland ON, she finally responded to correspondence with this gem.  “…As to your concerns about Bill C-246, there are certain aspects of the bill that I do unequivocally support (e.g. the banning of puppy mills) however the legislation in the current form will have to be changed because of its impact on agriculture, which is a major source of employment and income in my riding…”  Pssssssst! “The banning of puppy mills” ISN’T INCLUDED IN THIS BILL Ms. Rudd. Well at least she’s promised to vote in favour of sending the bill to Committee before she makes up her mind.


The shark-finning issue also seems to confuse a lot of Liberal MPs. Kent Hehr, Calgary Centre AB wrote “…Shark-finning, one of the issues addressed in the Bill, is already prohibited under the Criminal Code…” and Ginette Petitpas Taylor Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe, NB and Marc Garneau, Westmount-Ville-Marie, QC said the same thing, “…shark-finning is already prohibited, and other amendments to the bill fall outside of the purpose of the underlying legislation…” Esteemed elected Members, please stop embarrassing yourselves! BILL C-246 will ban the IMPORTATION of shark fins so Canadians will no longer be supporting the savage destruction of life for a bowl of soup. Apparently they’re all quoting from the same ill-informed script. (Insert sigh and MORE head shaking here.)

Disheartened? I am, but despite all of this, we cannot give up! The Prime Minister has promised free votes on private members’ business and we need to keep speaking up until all MPs understand what’s in Bill C-246. We only have until the end of September!

Click here to find out how you can help!

I’ve heard NDP MP Murray Rankin, Victoria BC, described as “the smartest person currently in the House of Commons.” In my eyes, he’s a star – a voice of reason in a vast sea of confusion. Mr. Rankin has whole-heartedly supported the bill with these statements. “…the bill is a collection of measures that are long overdue and well-considered, having been introduced, studied, and, in some cases, passed by the House in the past. It deserves further study. It will get further study at the Committee if we can agree to send it there so we can do our part, as Canadians, to modernize our animal cruelty laws…” and “…the Hon. Member for Beaches-East York has made it abundantly clear that he would be open to amendments of clarification. One such amendment which I will be moving, if we get it to that stage, is one that is extraordinarily simple. It would go something like this: “For greater certainty, this bill has no impact on hunting, fishing, and trapping. What else do we need Mr. Speaker?”

Indeed. What else DO we need?

~ Mary Giuffre, Founder, Ruby’s Legacy

Click here to find out how you can help!

Facebook Icon JOIN & SHARE the Ruby’s Legacy Facebook Group!

Twitter-icon Follow Ruby’s Legacy on Twitter!

OPEN LETTER to those who oppose Bill C-246

Written by Mary Giuffre: I’m writing regarding Bill C-246 and to focus your attention directly on the most cruel and rapidly growing industry in our country which would be completely transformed with the passing of this bill into law.

As the organizer of Ruby’s Legacy, I have chosen to speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves, by starting a massive citizen’s movement to STOP PUPPY MILLS IN CANADA.

Our group has come together in honour of a tiny puppy mill survivor named ‘Ruby’ – as well as all the others who suffer as she did. I adopted Ruby after a near lifetime as an over bred puppy mill mother. She only knew the love of our family for two short years before she succumbed to illness and injury inflicted by her excruciating years of confinement and torture. Shamefully the puppy mill industry has been allowed to grow exponentially in Canada and it is now a multimillion dollar business.

Bill C-246, the “Modernizing Animal Protections Act”, presented in the House of Commons by Nathaniel Erskine-Smith M.P. for Beaches-East York on February 26, 2016, includes changes to our Federal Criminal Code which are necessary to dismantle puppy mills entirely. In addition, it imposes harsher penalties for the horrendous crimes committed by puppy millers against adult dogs and puppies.


Puppy mills are high-volume, substandard dog-breeding facilities that put profits before animal health and welfare. Dogs are force-bred continuously, litter after litter. Mothers, fathers and puppies are denied proper veterinary care. They are not bathed or groomed causing inflammation, urine scald and infections. Their cages are without adequate ventilation, and this coupled with urine and feces build-up, causes high ammonia concentrations that irritate eyes, respiratory tract and mucous membranes. Dogs cannot express normal behaviours, and, instead, develop coping behaviours such as circling constantly, licking paws excessively, self-mutilation, and howling. These dogs are malnourished due to insufficient quantity and quality of food, as well as minimal clean water availability.

Most are imprisoned with several other dogs in cramped and stacked kennels, so they suffer deformities and painful ulcers from standing on wire cage bottoms. Feces and urine fall through the wire and onto the dogs below causing them to remain filthy, matted, and coated in excrement. Kennels are cleaned with power washers while dogs remain in their cages, some losing eyes in the process. Too many dogs are also physically brutalized by their captors.

Fenced Dogs-2Take a moment to imagine living like this with nowhere to escape.

Now envision all of this happening to a dog that weighs about five kilos or less. The majority of puppy mill dogs are vulnerable toy and small breeds as they are less expensive to feed and control, and because it’s possible to keep them in large numbers.

Most mill dogs are inadequately protected from extreme weather conditions. Many of them suffer unimaginable pain before perishing in the summer heat or frigid winter temperatures. The puppies who are lucky enough to survive are stolen from their mothers much too young and are subjected to the harsh conditions of transportation from mills to pet stores and markets.

The puppies delivered to pet stores and flea markets and purchased via online sources are born into these disgusting, unhealthy and overcrowded conditions. They are prone to hip dysplasia, bladder and bowel disorders, dislocated and deformed limbs, blindness, eye and ear infections, parvovirus, distemper, ulcers and parasites, as well as psychological problems such as aggression, anxiety and fear. Many ailments are not immediately apparent, or disclosed, when the puppy is sold. Thousands of new pet owners pay dearly for their purchase – financially for large vet bills – and emotionally when their puppy is sick and dies within months.

An estimated 95% of puppies sold in pet stores or online come from these disgusting places. For every puppy purchased, the parent dogs are left to suffer this horrible fate.

Knowing all of this, isn’t it astounding that puppy mills are NOT illegal in Canada? Our Federal animal cruelty law is wholly inadequate for preventing and shutting down these mills. The current section of the Canadian Criminal Code is written in such a way that it is nearly impossible to hold a puppy miller criminally responsible for animal cruelty. If a puppy miller happens to be convicted, the law offers little punishment for this crime, and most simply pay their fine and return to the business of torturing dogs for profit.Dog in filth-2

If you have been privileged to be loved by a dog, you already understand that they are extraordinary sentient beings. There has been a paradigm shift in thinking where the majority of Canadians are vehemently against any form of animal cruelty and more and more citizens are of the opinion that their dogs are part of their family unit and not merely a piece of their property.

If a dog has not touched you personally, you no doubt still have some understanding that these animals are our companions, with the combination of sophisticated intelligence, sensitivity, instinct, and compassion to aid humankind in most, if not all, areas of life. The list of jobs that dogs are capable of doing, with and without formal training, is truly awe-inspiring, and their willingness to risk their own safety for ours is immeasurable.

Here’s a brief list of what we train ‘man’s best friend’ to do for us:

  • Guide Dogs for the Blind
  • Hearing Ear Dogs
  • Therapy Dogs (Their sole purpose is to make people feel better.)
  • Seizure Detection Dogs
  • Search and Rescue Dogs
  • Guard/Watch Dogs
  • Water Rescue Dogs
  • Police Dogs
  • Detection Dogs – from bombs to drugs
  • Cadaver Detection Dogs
  • Herding Dogs
  • Courtroom Dogs

There are also endless stories of how family dogs, with no specific training, have saved lives or assisted humans without hesitation.

No one knows for certain how many puppy mills there are in this country because breeders are not obligated by law to register. However, we do know that hundreds of thousands of dogs suffer each year from the horrific conditions of mills. We sincerely hope you will help us end this unnecessary and completely preventable suffering by supporting this Bill that will put a stop to cruel puppy mill operators.

Please ask your MP to support to Bill C-246, the “Modernizing Animal Protections Act”, by joining Ruby’s Legacy. SEND A LETTER TO YOUR MP TODAY to save these voiceless beings and help put an end to puppy mills in Canada.


Mary Giuffre, Founder, Ruby’s Legacy

Facebook Icon JOIN & SHARE the Ruby’s Legacy Facebook Group!

Twitter-icon Follow Ruby’s Legacy on Twitter!

I Support Bill C-246 ”Because it’s 2016!”

Written by Mary Giuffre: I’veI support Bill C-246 "Because it's 2016" never been a fan of government. For most of my life I’ve voted because I’m supposed to and until the past few years I didn’t given much attention to the whys and wherefores of my country, my province or my municipality. Then, while witnessing and living under the lunacy of the last Canadian Prime Minister and because I’m a stickler for accountability, gradually, I got sucked in.

I started allowing myself to watch the news. When my husband droned on about politics it no longer sounded like ‘wawa’ in my ears and I actually started believing that if I stood up, perhaps someone would listen and I could do something to make the world a better place. So rather than just joining an advocacy group like any other semi-normal person might, I jumped into my sneakers and ran for office in our last municipal election. It was a very big mistake…gratefully I LOST…and I’m still extremely relieved, as once I declared, information was shared, and I was horrified at the thought of being counted among those less than credible individuals elected to govern of our township.

The thing is, we all know it’s impossible to un-ring a bell. I heard what I heard, knew what I knew, and I could not stop paying attention to corruption at all levels, so when last year’s Federal election rolled around, I was ready to vote! Well almost, I had no idea who I was voting for, but I knew I was voting Harper OUT!

So with hundreds of thousands of other Canadians, I didn’t vote FOR Justin Trudeau, I voted AGAINST Harper. And despite my objections to Bill C-51 and the TPP, when PM Trudeau took office, I became totally smitten with that smart, funny, articulate, charming and handsome breath of fresh air.  His kind and gentle way, his very hip Canadian-maple-leaf socks, his open acceptance of other cultures, and his Parliament Hill yoga poses pulled me in.  And then there is the fact that we share a Christmas birthday.  He and his “because it’s 2015” government won me over and I finally believed that a government body truly cared about ME, US, the LAND and our FURRY, FEATHERED and FINNED friends.

People want and need leaders, strong leaders, compassionate leaders, because they want to do the right thing and to do things right. Most of all, they want leaders who cannot be swayed from doing what truly IS the right thing.

Rallying people isn’t a new role for me. I produced TV for national networks for years, so I have mega experience herding cats. Last fall before the new government was elected, I organized ‘Ruby’s Legacy’, a massive citizen’s movement to help STOP PUPPY MILLS IN CANADA. I have chosen to speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves, and by reaching out to dog lovers across the country our group is 4,200 strong, including some international supporters, as animals have no concept of borders.

Our ‘Ruby’s Legacy’ inner circle has met with, and is working diligently to support the efforts of a first-time Liberal MP, by encouraging our members to send RED letters to MPs of all parties in support of his private member’s Bill c-246, ‘the Modernizing Animal Protections Act’.  Nathaniel Erskine-Smith is a leader – a new, bright light on Capital Hill. Nate has guts. Despite fierce opposition he’s vowed to bring our laws into the 21st Century and has bravely taken on the pathetic and embarrassing state of animal welfare in this country.

When I’ve spent time with Nate and his first assistant Andy Goodridge, I can’t help but admire this generation of remarkable men and women, which includes my nephews and nieces of the same age. Brought up by parents who have encouraged them to stand up, they are bold and fearless individuals brimming with appreciation and compassion for all things, because they don’t subscribe to the antiquated and erroneous attitude that man’s domination over animals and the environment includes abuse. Instead they get that everything on the planet deserves unconditional respect, just because it’s here. It’s what makes them great leaders.

So why am I feeling so disgruntled with the work I’ve chosen at this stage of my life? Because our government is still packed with elected members overflowing with self-importance, rather than compassion.

IS THIS OK WITH YOU?Over the past 3.5 months Ruby’s Legacy has sent over 5,000 letters telling our government they want changes to our animal welfare laws. I’ve sent personal email correspondence to EVERY FEDERAL MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT with hopes of drumming up support for Nate’s bill and received only one response. ONE. Robert-Falcon Ouellette the MP for Winnipeg Centre sent me a hand-written letter of acknowledgement and support. Very nice Mr. Ouellette…oh yes, you are of that compassionate generation I mentioned!

After sending a second round of letters, this time via Canada Post, to the ninety-nine Conservative MPs, with copies to the PM and Justice Minister, (a total of three-hundred letters!) my SECOND response came by way of a phone call from the office of a French Canadian MP. In my absence, his assistant informed my husband that letters sent to Francophone MPs would have a better chance of being read if they were written in French and that his MP had instructed him to “toss out” English correspondence. Really? If I don’t speak French, how would I be able to read a response that arrived in French? AND it’s my understanding that as a Canadian I have the right to receive service from my government in the official language of my choice…Hmmmmm.

My own MP who I’ve met on numerous occasions, knows me by name, and friended me on Facebook when I was running for Township Council, hasn’t responded either. I understand that MPs have a lot of people they represent, but isn’t somebody in that office in charge of constituent correspondence, especially when it’s over three months old?

Despite the lack of response and determined to save mill dogs from an insufferable fate, my husband and I travelled to Ottawa for the Bill C-246 debate earlier this week. A first time visitor to the House of Commons as witness to the debate of a Private Members’ bill, what I anticipated to be history in the making, digressed into officious pontification.

Passionate and articulate, MP Erskine-Smith spoke to a sparsely populated House of chattering MPs, who appeared only marginally interested in the proceedings as they surfed the net on their laptops. (You can see it all from the Gallery.) First he complimented past Justice Ministers and members who have put forward near identical legislation in the past. He provided details on the breadth of his bill and spoke to every possible concern presented to him by those opposing it. Nate explained that animal welfare is non-partisan issue. He reassured farmers, anglers and hunters that no currently accepted practices would be influenced by this bill, making clear that THE BILL IS ABOUT ANIMAL ABUSE, NOT ANIMAL USE and that he is wide open to discussion about changing language that will clarify any concerns on any point.

Questions and speeches then came from all parties. Conservative MP Michelle Rempel began with sincere questions and seemed satisfied with Erskine-Smith’s responses. Green Party Leader, MP Elizabeth May, who had previously introduced legislation around shark finning, encouraged Nate to speak further about the greater purpose of taking this step forward against animal cruelty in Canada.

We were off to a compassionate start which continued with NDP MPs Fin Donnelly and Murray Rankin who stood in firm solidarity with MP Erskine-Smith. Donnelly had also taken on the shark finning issue in the past. (Personally I couldn’t help but be amused over the Fin – shark finning connection.) And Rankin made an educated and impassioned speech, requesting they take Bill C-246 to committee for discussion over the legal details.

In sadly partisan style, Conservative MPs Robert Sopuck and Blaine Calkins where completely closed down. First they proved they have limited knowledge of Parliamentary proceedings, as their presentation protocol had to be corrected by the House Speaker – which drew serious mocking from other members. Sopuck’s ramblings made it obvious he hadn’t listened to anything Nate said in his opening address. This opponent had taken a stand and wasn’t budging, blathering on and on…impact on hunting, fishing and farming…PETA and animal rights advocates taking over government…animal testing… He spoke of unintended consequences, hidden agendas and based on what I heard from Nate’s speech, Sopuck was just making things up as he went along.

Far too charming, Calkins eloquently patronized MP Erskine-Smith with far sweeping statements. Calkins congratulated him on the magnitude of his undertaking, presented an obvious lecture on distinction between urban vs. rural dogs, then reiterated several of Sopuck’s already superfluous statements. He boasted more than once about his degrees in Zoology, Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, then spouted a completely ridiculous statement about NOT KNOWING ANYONE WHO DIDN’T LOVE THEIR DOG! Mr. Calkins if you had paid attention to even one case of cruelty towards a dog, you couldn’t possibly say something so ludicrous.

The biggest shock and major disappointment of the debate came from the Liberal Party itself. In a totally awkward speech, Bill Blair the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice,  addressed the House. With one hand he complimented MP Erskine-Smith’s efforts and with the other he did his best to dress him down. (Fortunately this generation doesn’t falter easily.) Fumbling through a folder of hand written pages, we witnessed Blair searching for notes and scrambling for words. He stated something about studying the whole Criminal Code which needs an overhaul and basically struck a blow at the unsuspecting Erskine-Smith with the information that his own government would not support his bill. Nate was noticeably taken back and spoke out more than once asking for legal proof of Blair’s statements.

Today, I’m thoroughly disappointed with our government…Canada has been given the opportunity to update animal cruelty regulations in the Criminal Code 13 times in 16 years. These changes are not new and they have never actually been voted down, but instead have been dismissed through government tactics, which appears to be happening yet again.

We Canadians are not getting the compassionate “because it’s 2015” government we were promised. Animals are suffering and dying at the hands of abusers and getting away with it because our government is refusing to protect them.

It’s now 2016!!! PASS THIS LAW then study the whole damn criminal code on your own time. The animals don’t have that kind of time!

The 4,200 voices of ‘Ruby’s Legacy’ as well as the over 45,000 individuals in Canada and abroad who have signed a petition supporting Bill C-246 have spoken out loudly and clearly. Overhaul Canada’s seriously out dated Animal Welfare laws!


~ Mary Giuffre is the Founder of Ruby’s Legacy, an ongoing National  Campaign to STOP PUPPY MILLS in Canada!

Facebook Icon JOIN & SHARE the Ruby’s Legacy Facebook Group!

Twitter-icon Follow Ruby’s Legacy on Twitter!