February 2000
by Barry Stagg
There are new amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada coming out of Ottawa. The so-called "Pet Lovers Amendments" will elevate criminal charges of cruelty to animals to the status of indictable offences as opposed to the present summary conviction status now dictated by s.446 of the Criminal Code. Penalties up to five years in jail will be possible and various supplementary sentencing tools will be made available to a trial judge, some of which will apparently include payment of costs to local humane societies and other animal protection groups.
The concerned public is somewhat at a loss as to the actual details of the new government bill since the amendment itself has just been released to the House of Commons. However, given the strength and wealth of the animal rights lobby, it is not far fetched to wonder if the new Criminal Code amendments will be used by the anti- sealing lobby to criminalize the actions of the sealing industry.
One of the most contentious aspects of the new law is the movement of the animal cruelty offences to Part V of the Criminal Code joining it with sexual offences and public morals charges. As well the amendment creates a new offence of "brutally or viciously" killing an animal. That seems to be a close fit with the usual rant from the anti-sealers over sealing techniques. Here is the part of the new law that may cause a lot of trouble:
182.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) causes or, being the owner, permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal;
(b) kills an animal or, being the owner, permits an animal to be killed, brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately;
It is not too difficult to envision a well-funded association such as Greenpeace hiring a prominent criminal lawyer to engage in a private prosecution of sealers engaged in the necessarily bloody business of killing seals. Unless the Criminal Code amendments contain some requirement that the provincial attorney general consent to such prosecutions, there is nothing stopping a fervent animal rights activist from appearing before a justice of the peace in a place such as St. John's to swear out an information (a criminal charge) against working sealers. With the charge then placed before the Newfoundland Provincial Court, an anti-sealing faction would have no difficulty in recruiting one of a legion of urban legal activists who regularly portray the seal hunt as barbarism incarnate. The Attorney General of Newfoundland would then be in the uncomfortable position of having to decide whether to intervene and to take carriage of such a prosecution. Doubtlessly, the public relations machine of the "hug a seal" industry would raise a very public hue and cry about the nasty intervention of government and politicians in their righteous cause.
When this government bill finds its way into debate in the House of Commons, the Newfoundland public would do well to charge its members of parliament with the task of vigorously debating and amending the legislation to ensure that,at a very minimum, those engaged in the properly licensed prosecution of a licensed fishery or animal harvest cannot be prosecuted for an animal cruelty offence except with the consent of the provincial attorney general. That would head off a lot of potential mischief from groups dedicated to the elevation of animal rights to a social position far above that of rural Newfoundland sealers.