While you're right that there is no intent needed to lay a charged under the PCA Act, in this case charges couldn't even be contemplated under the PCA Act, because the PCA Act applies only to owners, or people who have custody and control of an animal. The RCMP obviously misspoke, or the newspaper misquoted. The only charge available would be under the Criminal Code for causing unnecessary suffering, and whether right or wrong, the RCMP decided that the suffering was necessary.