 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|||
|
Government may blink on animal cruelty bill May 5/03, Vancouver Sun ... The Liberal government has signaled it will accept amendments to animal cruelty legislation following allegations the bill will criminalize Canadians who boil lobsters or fish with live bait. Liberal Senator Mobina Jaffer said the government's apparent flexibility would go some distance to answering Senate concerns, especially regarding the definition of animal as all vertebrates and "any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain." The possible protection of spineless animals in a cruelty law was one of several issues that has drawn attention at the Senate justice committee, which will consider this week proposing major changes to Bill C-10b. Canadians doing seemingly routine things, like dropping a lobster in a boiling pot of water, shouldn't have to worry that scientists may eventually prove that some invertebrates can feel pain, according to Jaffer. "We just don't think those people should even have to worry about it," said Jaffer, the bill's sponsor in the Senate. "Because a lot of us put lobsters in a pot, or crabs, or a worm on a hook. And so we don't want to bring law into disrepute by not having that clarified." Bill C-10 would increase penalties from a maximum of six months in jail and fines of $2,000 to five years and fines reaching $10,000. Those convicted would also possibly face a lifetime ban on owning pets. The committee is considering several major changes that critics say would neuter the bill, including one proposal that would provide conditional exemptions for aboriginals, hunters, fishermen, scientists, and those engaged in "generally accepted practices of animal management, husbandry or slaughter." While the government has resisted any suggestion that exemptions would be considered, a senior justice department bureaucrat indicated last week the government would consider less significant changes if the bill is sent back to the House of Commons. "We understand the concern about the definition of animal," Richard Mosley told senators. While he said the definition was written to provide "flexibility," he said the government "can well understand" why the committee would want to remove the reference to any animal feeling pain. Mosley also provided to the committee suggested wording for an amendment that would explicitly include the "colour of right" as a defence against cruelty charges. That defence allows someone to argue that they had an "honest but mistaken" belief that what they were doing was legal. Lesli Bisgould, a Toronto lawyer and spokeswoman for the group Animal Alliance, said the government is watering down the legislation to "appease the community of people who hurt animals on a regular basis." Bisgould said the two changes, if they go through, could provide new opportunities to defend against animal cruelty charges. But she also insisted that C-10b, even if it is not amended, won't be used to persecute farmers, hunters, ranchers, and other groups that have voiced fear they will be targeted. "It would give slightly better protection to some animals in our society - the dogs that get dragged behind cars or the cats that get put in microwave ovens. "But in terms of the practices that are common in agriculture - castrating an animal without anesthetic, for example. That's practiced in every province across the country."
|
