Animal Welfare and Human Values

Seven: Hunting, Fishing and Fowling

96 Animal Welfare and Human Values of research activities. They are also responsible for developing guidelines on alternatives and ensuring the competence of relevant personnel. Animal Ethics Committees are themselves monitored by government-appointed inspectors. Given the relative novelty and the paucity of information about the Australian situation, it is difficult to judge how effective the system is, or, more appropriately, is going to be. Nonetheless, it is encouraging to note that the 1989 Commonwealth (i.e., federal) Senate Select Committee Report stated explicitly that all involved in the practice, administration and control of animal experimentation need to be publicly accountable for their actions. It was also recognized—and this is perhaps the major drawback of all current systems—that a narrow spectrum of scientific views tends to be significantly less critical than where membership reflects both scientific and community attitudes. While the Australian report did not mention the appropriate proportion , there are good grounds for the belief that at least half the membership of animal ethics committees should come from the educated—and preferably trained—lay public. It is, moreover, highly desirable that such committees should be called, as they are in Australia, Animal Ethics Committees, for that is a constant reminder of their raison d'etre. Apart from Portugal, Spain (and technically Australia), Canada is alone among the Western liberal democracies in having no national legislation to govern animal experimentation, although there is legislation in 3 of the 10 provinces (Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta). Unlike Portugal and Spain, however, there is a fairly elaborate but voluntary (and uneven) system of assessment. Despite the lack of compulsion, the Canadian system has been acknowledged as responsive to changes in technology and public sensibility and as containing elements worthy of imitation elsewhere. In its Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals the Canadian Council on Animal Care (C.C.A.C.) states that the "fundamental concept on which animal care in Canada and its surveillance by CCAC is based, is that of control from within the institution exercised by the scientists themselves."10 But who guards the guardians? From the perspective of animal welfare advocates it is the convicts who are running the prison. Ethical decisions are made by those who have neither the relevant expertise nor the interests of the public or animals as their prime consideration. Their immediate interests lie in the promotion, not regulation, of animal experimentation. While there is in principle much merit to such a view, in practice the Canadian system is much more favourable to animal interests than one 10 Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals (Ottawa: Canadian Council on Animal Care, 1980), 1:i. Animal Experimentation: Legislation and Assessment 97 might expect. Nonetheless, that is largelybecause of the qualities of the professional personnel who administer the system and the expertise and commitment of the animal welfarists who sit on the council and serve on the committees. The system itself leaves a great deal to be desired. The C.C.A.C. claims "that the achievement of optimal conditions for animal care and use ismore likely to be approached through the CCAC program which is considered preferable under Canadian constitutional conditions, to attempting national legislative control. Legislation has always tended to enforce only minimal acceptable standards. Historically , it has failed to involve or satisfy the concerns of the animal welfare movement."11 These claims require a response. "Canadian constitutional conditions" are in principle no bar to legislation. Under the British North America Act—now officially called the Constitution Act of 1867 and still the closest Canada comes to having a formal constitution despite the Canada [Constitution] Act of 1982—matters not explicitly reserved to the provinces devolve to the federation. Provinces may legislate in areas not explicitly reserved to them and not explicitly deemed federal until and unless the federation acts. And there is no mention of animal welfare in the British North America Act or the Canada Act. It is possible that the courts may determine animal experimentation a matter of health or police or educational jurisdiction —which are primarily reserved to the provinces—but there is no probable reason to believe so. It is true that in 1990 the Federal Minister of Health claimed the matter to be beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government in the view of his advisors. But this seems only a convenient way to avoid a controversial issue. After all, the federal government has usually determined it has the right to legislate in...