CANADIAN PETS: The Argument for the Extension of Universal Healthcare to Non-Human Animal Companions

Abstract

Companion non-human (n-h) animals, more commonly referred to as pets, should be granted species-appropriate healthcare benefits comparable to those of humans. In Canada, this would be most feasible through an insurance scheme such as those provided to human residents through provincial and territorial health care plans operating under the auspices of the Canada Health Act (CHA) – which is a federal act. This argument can be made in several ways, the strongest of which adopts the bundle theory of legal personhood articulated by Visa Anton Julius Kurki. (2023; 2025) In order to demonstrate the value of this approach, it is also necessary to review the strengths and weaknesses of other arguments that may lead to similar outcomes, though without being directly entangled with the CHA or personhood in the same way, throughout this text. This work follows a specific trajectory: Introduction, (Chapter 1) key definitions and context, (Chapter 2) a review of historical and contemporary arguments for and against the mattering of non-human animals, (Chapter 3) a review of the bundle theory of legal personhood and non-human citizenship theory, (Chapter 4) a comparative assessment of the arguments for pet healthcare in Canada, (Chapter 5) pragmatic considerations – how healthcare coverage works in Canada and the implications of the different arguments for extending such services to n-h animal companions, and finally, the Conclusion – that expanding coverage to pets through the CHA would require recognition of n-h animal companion personhood as such is requisite for legal resident status in Canada. Further, that doing so aligns with utilitarian, Buddhist, care, and neo-Kantian ethics, the Capabilities Approach, Mitsein and recognition-based frameworks, as well as the relational theory of political n-h animal rights put forth by Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka in Zoopolis (2014).