The activists want the new law to be as far-reaching as possible, covering all animals that "have the capacity to feel pain". The Senate prefers the scientifically correct definition of "a vertebrate, other than a human being" and wants the law to be specific about what does, and does not, constitute animal cruelty.

While a lawyer for the Animal Alliance decreed that there are "no grounds for further amendments" to the bill because not only had it passed the lower house, it had also been "scrutinized by many people, including the Department of Justice and their lawyers", Canada’s political system requires wider consultations.

And while it is one thing for Animal Alliance lawyers to minimize the constitutional role of the Senate in the establishment of new laws, it is another to discount the views and testimony of other interested groups, such as hunters, trappers, anglers, medical researchers and businessmen whose livelihoods and welfare are inextricably linked to utilizing animals.

Nobody wants to see pets or other animals maltreated because of human neglect or malice. But the activists have tried to use this bill as a vehicle for an agenda to prohibit the use of animals in all circumstances. That is why the bill is rightly being amended by the Senate and that is why the activists are threatening to withdraw their support for it.