PUMP KNOWS Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 http://www.keepcanadafishing.com/go-fishing-go-to-jail-theres-somethings-fishy-about-bill-c-246/ GO FISHING, GO TO JAIL – There’s something’s fishy about Bill C-246To contact your MP, MPP or MLA click here. Peterborough, Ont: Canadian families who fish together will do time together if Bill C-246 becomes law. The ‘Modernizing Animal Protections Act” was introduced last week by Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith of Toronto. It is being promoted as legislation to ban of the importation of shark fins and outlaw the practice of shark finning in Canadian waters. But that is only the tip of the fin. An activist coalition of Canadian and U.S. animal rights organizations with a decades-long history of sustained attacks on anglers and farmers quickly supported the private member’s bill. Led by the International Fund for Animal Welfare of Yarmouth, Massachusetts and the Toronto-based Animal Alliance of Canada, these groups have once again come out in strong support of federal legislation which threatens a criminal charge, up to a $10,000 fine and five years jail time for anglers who harvest a few fish for dinner. Provisions in Bill C-246 clearly make it possible for someone who catches a fish to face criminal prosecution for cruelty to animals. Even the act of baiting a hook with a worm would be considered an act of cruelty according to the Bill. Specifically, Section 182.1.1 states that: 182.1 (1) Everyone commits an offence who, willfully or recklessly, ( kills an animal or, being the owner, permits an animal to be killed, brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately; This section poses the same threat as the seven previous iterations of similar bills. According to exhaustive legal opinions, for the first time in Canadian history this section would make it an offence to kill an animal brutally or viciously – without defining those terms – and does not exempt from this offence normal hunting and fishing activities. Hunting and fishing necessarily involve the killing of animals. Animal rights groups consistently attempt to portray these traditional Canadian heritage activities as inherently brutal and vicious. If Bill C-246 becomes law, this section will be used by animal rights activists who will employ provisions of the Criminal Code to bring private prosecutions to harass lawful anglers and hunters. “Once again we see the timeworn tactic by these MP’s and groups of fronting a façade which appears to promote a seemingly reasonable solution to an animal cruelty issue, while concealing the true intention of the legislation,” states Phil Morlock, Government Affairs Chair of the Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association. “The implications of this Bill are chilling. It is a nuclear strike against our outdoor heritage activities and threatens anyone who just wants to take their kids fishing.” In a classic example of the relentless ‘under the radar’ attacks on the eight million Canadians who enjoy fishing, this Bill copies the same contentious phrasing that directly threatens anglers and which appeared in seven previous government Bills from 1999 – 2008. That legislation had strong support from M.P. Mark Holland who is now Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Democratic Institutions, Maryam Monsef MP for Peterborough-Kawartha. Mr. Holland was quoted in the November 30, 2015 issue of The Hill Times newspaper as once again drafting similar ‘animal cruelty’ legislation. “We’re urging all Canadian anglers who enjoy the freedom of fishing with their families without fear of prosecution to contact their Member of Parliament to express their opposition to Bill C-246,” added Morlock. Anglers can access the contact information of their Member of Parliament by visiting www.keepcanadafishing.com. – 30 – The Canadian Sportfishing Industry Association (CSIA) represents the manufacturers, distributors, retailers and sales agencies which serve the 8 million Canadians who spend over $8 billion dollars annually enjoying the outdoor heritage activity of recreational fishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adolson Posted March 7, 2016 Report Share Posted March 7, 2016 If this applies to fishing and hunting, does it also apply to the chicken, beef, and pork industry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfisher Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 First Session, Forty-second Parliament, 64-65 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016 HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA BILL C-246 An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Fisheries Act, the Textile Labelling Act, the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (animal protection) FIRST READING, FEBRUARY 26, 2016 Mr. Erskine-Smith 421146 SUMMARY This enactment amends the Criminal Code to consolidate and modernize various offences against animals. The enactment amends the Fisheries Act to prohibit the practice of shark finning and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act to prohibit the importation of shark fins that are not attached to the rest of the shark carcass. It also amends the Textile Labelling Act to modify requirements in respect of animal hair and fur and cat and dog skin, hair and fur. It also amends the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act to add products made in whole or in part of dog or cat fur or skin to Schedule 2 to that Act to prohibit those products from being imported into Canada or manufactured, advertised or sold in Canada. Available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 1st Session, 42nd Parliament 64-65 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016 HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA BILL C-246 An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Fisheries Act, the Textile Labelling Act, the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (animal protection) Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: Short Title Short title 1 This Act may be cited as the Modernizing Animal Protections Act. R.S., c. C-46 Criminal Code 2 Section 160 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (3): Definition of bestiality (4) For the purposes of this section, bestiality means sexual activity between a person and an animal. 3 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 182: PART V.1 Offences against animals Killing or harming animals 182.1 (1) Everyone commits an offence who, wilfully or recklessly, (a) causes or, being the owner, permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal; ( kills an animal or, being the owner, permits an animal to be killed, brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately; © kills an animal without lawful excuse; (d) without lawful excuse, poisons an animal, places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by an animal, administers an injurious drug or substance to an animal or, being the owner, permits anyone to do any of those things; (e) in any manner encourages, promotes, arranges, assists at, takes part in or receives money for the fighting or baiting of animals, including breeding, training or transporting an animal to fight another animal; (f) makes, maintains, keeps or allows to be made, maintained or kept a cockpit or any other arena for the fighting of animals; (g) promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for or takes part in any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display or event at or in the course of which captive animals are liberated by hand, trap, contrivance or any other means for the purpose of being shot at the moment they are liberated; or (h) being the owner, occupier or person in charge of any premises, permits the premises or any part of the premises to be used in the course of an activity referred to in paragraph (e) or (g). Punishment (2) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or ( an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months or to both. Failing to provide adequate care 182.2 (1) Everyone commits an offence who (a) negligently causes unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal; ( being the owner, or the person having the custody or control of an animal, wilfully or recklessly abandons it or negligently fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, air, shelter and care for it; or © negligently injures an animal while it is being conveyed. Definition of negligently (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), negligently means departing markedly from the standard of care that a reasonable person would use. Punishment (3) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or ( an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term of not more than six months or to both. Order of prohibition or restitution 182.3 (1) The court may, in addition to any other sentence that it may impose under subsection 182.1(2) or 182.2(3), (a) make an order prohibiting the offender from owning, having the custody or control of or residing in the same premises as an animal for any period that the court considers appropriate, and in the case of a second offence, for life; and ( on application of the Attorney General or on its own motion, order that the offender pay to a person or an organization that has taken care of an animal as a result of the commission of the offence the reasonable costs that the person or organization incurred in respect of the animal, if the costs are readily ascertainable. Breach of order (2) Everyone who contravenes an order made under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. Application (3) Sections 740 to 741.2 apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to orders made under paragraph (1)(. Common law defences 182.4 For greater certainty, subsection 8(3) and the defences set out in subsection 429(2) apply, to the extent that they are relevant, in respect of proceedings for an offence under this Part. Aboriginal rights 182.5 For greater certainty, nothing in this Part shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from the protection provided for existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada by the recognition and affirmation of those rights in section 35of the Constitution Act, 1982. Killing or injuring certain animals 182.6 (1) Everyone commits an offence who, wilfully and without lawful excuse, kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures a law enforcement animal while it is aiding a law enforcement officer in carrying out that officer’s duties, a military animal while it is aiding a member of the Canadian Forces in carrying out that member’s duties or a service animal. Punishment (2) Everyone who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and, if a law enforcement animal is killed in the commission of the offence, to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months; or ( an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months or to both. Sentences to be served consecutively (3) A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) committed against a law enforcement animal shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events. Definitions (4) The following definitions apply in this section. law enforcement animal means a dog or horse that is trained to aid a law enforcement officer in carrying out that officer’s duties. (animal d’assistance policière) law enforcement officer means a police officer, a police constable or any person referred to in paragraph (, (c.1), (d), (d.1), (e) or (g) of the definition peace officer in section 2.(agent de contrôle d’application de la loi) military animal means an animal that is trained to aid a member of the Canadian Forces in carrying out that member’s duties. (animal d’assistance militaire) service animal means an animal that is required by a person with a disability for assistance and is certified, in writing, as having been trained by a professional service animal institution to assist a person with a disability. (animal d’assistance) 4 Paragraph 264.1(1)© of the Act is replaced by the following: © to kill, poison or injure an animal that is the property of any person. 5 Section 270.03 of the Act is replaced by the following: Sentences to be served consecutively 270.03 A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection 270(1) or270.01(1) or section 270.02 committed against a law enforcement officer, as defined in subsection 182.6(4), shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events. 6 Subsection 429(2) of the Act is replaced by the following: Colour of right (2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under sections 430 to 443 where they prove that they acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right. 7 The heading before section 444 and sections 444 to 447.1 of the Act are repealed. 8 Section 718.03 of the Act is replaced by the following: Objectives — offence against certain animals 718.03 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence under subsection 182.6(1), the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence. R.S., c. F-14 Fisheries Act 9 The Fisheries Act is amended by adding the following after section 31: Prohibition — shark finning 32 (1) No person shall engage in the practice of shark finning. Definition of shark finning (2) In this section, shark finning means the practice of removing a fin from a shark and discarding the remainder of the shark while at sea. R.S., c. T-10 Textile Labelling Act 10 The definition textile fibre in section 2 of the Textile Labelling Act is replaced by the following: textile fibre means any natural or manufactured matter that is capable of being made into a yarn or fabric and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes human hair, kapok, feathers and down, animal skin and animal hair and fur, whether or not it has been removed from the animal skin; (fibre textile) 11 (1) Subparagraph 6((i) of the Act is replaced by the following: (i) subject to subparagraph (i.1), the generic name of each textile fibre comprising five per cent or more by mass of the total fibre mass of the article, (i.1) the generic name of cat and dog skin, or cat and dog hair or fur not removed from the skin, comprising any amount of the total fibre mass of the article; (2) The English version of subparagraph 6((ii) of the Act is replaced by the following: (ii) subject to the regulations, the percentage by mass of the total fibre mass of the article that each textile fibre named in accordance with subparagraph (i) or (i.1)comprises, 1992, c. 52 Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act 12 (1) Section 6 of the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1): Importation of shark fins (1.1) No person shall, except under and in accordance with a permit issued pursuant to subsection 10(1.1), import, or attempt to import, into Canada shark fins that are not attached to a shark carcass. (2) Section 10 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1): Permit — importation of shark fins (1.1) The Minister may, on application and on such terms and conditions as the Minister thinks fit, issue a permit authorizing the importation of shark fins that are not attached to a shark carcass if the Minister is of the opinion that (a) the importation is for the purpose of scientific research relating to shark conservation that is conducted by qualified persons; and ( the activity benefits the survival of shark species or is required to enhance their chance of survival in the wild. 2010, c. 21 Canada Consumer Product Safety Act 13 Schedule 2 to the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act is amended by adding the following in numerical order: 17 Products made in whole or in part of dog or cat fur or skin. Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons Sorry for the reading but it'd be more useful to have the Bill as it is here rather than a link. It seems to me that the definition of "animal" seems to refer more to pets (dogs and cats) compared to animals as a whole. It would be nice to have a clear definition of animals, but considering the only amendment to the Fisheries Act is the shark finning bit, and the Cruelty Act describes situations such as dogfighting or injuring/killing enforcement animals, it's not meant for fishing and hunting. But as I said, it would be really nice for a definition of animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookinforwalleye Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 A little over the top with the rhetoric and fear mongering I think.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skud Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 It is a reality that we will have to constantly fight. People give millions of dollars to organizations like P3TA thinking the money will be used to save kitty cats and puppy dogs. Unfortunately the money is used to fund these crazy Bills and to pay off members of parliament to also support them and try to weasel them through to law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Ironmaker Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 A little over the top with the rhetoric and fear mongering I think.... I second that motion. I don't see anyone that practices angling for sports fish to ever be charged with cruelty if done in a responsible fashion as it is intended to be practiced. Fear mongering at it's best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave524 Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Sorry , not fear mongering , they get their foot in the door, keep advancing their real agenda an inch at a time , you keep saying that don't sound too bad and eventually you have given away the farm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLINKER Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Buy a waiver from prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehg Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) A little over the top with the rhetoric and fear mongering I think.... The guy who wrote "Go fishing, Go to jail" is Phil Morlock who works for Shimano (80% bikes, 20% fishing). The guy lives in Arizona. Some how sending an email to this Peterborough room benefits Shimano. CSIA doesn't really exist except for e-mail listing. Bill C-246 exists to legislate against importation of shark fins. Cute how they put young girl fishing with Barbie rod and stating in future $10,000 fine for hooking worm. Unless you buy Shimano. Need a bike part soon. Edited March 8, 2016 by ehg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adolson Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 It is a reality that we will have to constantly fight. People give millions of dollars to organizations like P3TA thinking the money will be used to save kitty cats and puppy dogs. Unfortunately the money is used to fund these crazy Bills and to pay off members of parliament to also support them and try to weasel them through to law. The money also pays for giant freezers for P3TA to store all the dead cats and dogs that they kill (over 80% killed since 2002). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
netminder Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Wait... hold on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this implying that animal cruelty legislation that's already on the books has no law against killing animals? You say hooking a worm is part of the offence, but if I swat a fly and don't kill it immediately I could be looking at a fine and jail time? Spraying crops with pesticide, or government forces fumigating against emerald ash borer or mosquitoes? Gassing is a war crime. What is this mass genocide perpetrated by our government going to be viewed as? I find it more than a little amusing how terrified some of you are at fringe "animal rights" groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave524 Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 I find it more than a little amusing how terrified some of you are at fringe "animal rights" groups. Unfortunately, at 65 I've seen the " fringe " become the norm 10/20 years down the road too many times in my lifetime to even take a single step down that road anymore. We must be vigilante and united as fishermen , hunters, trappers and shooting sports enthusiasts and stop being divided and our own worst enemy , throwing one another under the bus. If we do not stand together we will fall individually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 No different that a year in jail for killing a sow bear with cubs...just a sneaky little tactic the government tosses in to get you when they have a grudge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave524 Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 I know it's a wiki quote but you can see where they can go with some of this wording, I always thought the Germans and Swiss had their heads screwed on tighter than some other Euro Countries, guess not. " In Switzerland and Germany, catch and release fishing is considered inhumane and is now banned.[5] In Germany, the Animal Welfare Act states that "no-one may cause an animal pain, suffering or harm without good reason".[6] This leaves no legal basis for catch and release due to its argued inherent lack of "good reason", and thus personal fishing is solely allowed for immediate food consumption. Additionally, it is against the law to release fish back into the water if they are above minimum size requirements and aren't aprotected species or in closed season. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
netminder Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 Unfortunately, at 65 I've seen the " fringe " become the norm 10/20 years down the road too many times in my lifetime to even take a single step down that road anymore. We must be vigilante and united as fishermen , hunters, trappers and shooting sports enthusiasts and stop being divided and our own worst enemy , throwing one another under the bus. If we do not stand together we will fall individually. Sure, but you didn't answer my original question(s). What is this changing? Just because they support it doesn't mean we have to oppose it. I think it's a good thing. I'm all for animal welfare and ethical treatment of animals. Just because they're on a farm or going to be eaten doesn't mean we get to torture them or abuse them. Opposing this bill is essentially saying that you're OK with animal abuse. I don't think that is what hunters and anglers want to be associated with, lest we want the general public against us too. The other key component to this is the words "brutally or viciously". I'm not sure how the law defines those two words, but I can't imagine stunning the fish with a blow to the head or putting it on ice would be considered either of those two things. Filleting it as soon as it comes out of the water while it's still alive, probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave524 Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) The other key component to this is the words "brutally or viciously". I'm not sure how the law defines those two words, but I can't imagine stunning the fish with a blow to the head or putting it on ice would be considered either of those two things. Filleting it as soon as it comes out of the water while it's still alive, probably. the keys words actually come after " brutally or viciously " as in " regardless of whether the animal dies immediately " so your immediate stunning with a blow to the head could be construed by some to be brutal as it is not lethal/humane. I consider a bullet to the brain or decapitation as humane but because of the associated gore factor many could say they are vicious or brutal. Edited March 8, 2016 by dave524 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinker Posted March 8, 2016 Report Share Posted March 8, 2016 I dunno, I think death is brutal and vicious any way it happens. This crap will never fly anyways. Its simple fear mongering. These yahoos make this stuff up and expect people to follow suit, but they forget that the other 90% of the planet are somewhat normal. S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatnFly Posted March 11, 2016 Report Share Posted March 11, 2016 this will affect more than just fisherman, hunters and trappers, think of the people that run fishing and hunting shops, baitshops, guides, lodges, outfitters, manufacturers of fishing and hunting gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dara Posted March 11, 2016 Report Share Posted March 11, 2016 Its not much different than C100 for trail access...just the government trying for tighter control over the population Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLINKER Posted March 11, 2016 Report Share Posted March 11, 2016 It's been illegal to catch or kill fish for some time now but you can purchase a waver from prosecution from your provincial gov. to do so, if the feds make a law against hunting and fishing the provinces would never go for it. The economic loss to governments would be enormous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
netminder Posted March 11, 2016 Report Share Posted March 11, 2016 It's been illegal to catch or kill fish for some time now but you can purchase a waver from prosecution from your provincial gov. to do so, if the feds make a law against hunting and fishing the provinces would never go for it. The economic loss to governments would be enormous. Not including the huge industries that have been built up around it. People may give millions to animal rights fanatics but other people give BILLIONS to the hunting and fishing industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirCranksalot Posted March 11, 2016 Report Share Posted March 11, 2016 Whenever I eat meat I try to make sure it's happy dead meat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Farmer Posted March 11, 2016 Report Share Posted March 11, 2016 (edited) I guess they have to ban Driving. After it rains, worms crawl out on certain roads. Can't cut the grass anymore case you step on a worm or bugs. Didn't realise how cruel I've been. Poor Veggies i've hurt eating them with my Chicken Wings, wait a minute Chicken. I can't believe these people live amongst us. Edited March 11, 2016 by Fish Farmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now