Thank you so much.
First of all, I want to thank the committee for this whole process.
In particular, I want to thank Mr. Rankin, the member for Victoria and my MP—he is absent today but he has been here—for all his good work in the community and his support for various issues I've brought forward related to animals. He's been very helpful with that.
I also want to thank Mr. Erskine-Smith, the member for Beaches—East York—he's not here now either—for his work on bringing animal issues forward into government. I think he's made a tremendous impact here.
My name is Jordan Reichert. I'm the West Coast Campaign Officer for the Animal Protection Party of Canada. The Animal Protection Party of Canada is North America's first political party for animals to represent their interests and those of the environment. It was established in 2005—before, one could say, bringing animals into politics was cool, perhaps. We hold all political parties accountable for their policy in regard to protecting animals and the impact of their policy on the environment and society as well.
To start, I want to address the question of animal sentience, which underlies the purpose of why we are gathered here to consider the treatment of animals under the law. While animals may still be defined as property under the 1892 statute in the Criminal Code, they are without question sentient. According to the declaration on consciousness that was made in July 2012, scientists, in the presence of the late Stephen Hawking, wrote the following:
Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors.
In recognition of the above, it is necessary to approach Bill C-84 from the perspective that we are enhancing protections for vulnerable individuals who may not be treated as equals under the law but are nonetheless affected equally by its inadequacies to protect their safety. Bill C-84 addresses specific instances of cruel acts against animals—namely, bestiality and animal fighting—without addressing the broader implications of animals' continued definition as property. I want to acknowledge this shortcoming while not dwelling on it, and move on to the specific acts addressed in the bill.
The amendments to the Criminal Code proposed in Bill C-84 address long-standing holes in the law that have allowed for the sexual abuse, exploitation and suffering of animals across Canada. While these issues in particular may not be as prolific or garner as much attention as other animal cruelty issues, they are no less important to the animals who suffer them.
As is often referenced as the catalyst for Bill C-84 in regard to bestiality, the Supreme Court case of the Queen v. D.L.W. narrowly defined bestiality as “penetration between a human and an animal”, drawn from the original term “buggery”. This allowed an act of unquestionable sexual harm to an animal and a young person to be excused. In the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, this has had further chilling effects on prosecutors' already limited abilities to address animal cruelty cases. With there being a strong correlation between the abuse of animals and the abuse of vulnerable people when they are present, this amendment will benefit individuals, animal and human alike.
My concern about the wording of Bill C-84 is that it does not go far enough to address the contemporary systematic aspects of bestiality rings. Bestiality is not only a private act but also a social one, with online forums and an existing trade in images, video and the arranging of meetings to sexually abuse animals. For example, unlike child pornography, no provisions are made in the wording of the law against bestiality, old or amended, that address the creation of materials and the promotion or dissemination of sexualized content of animals.
In Washington state, laws around bestiality acknowledge this broader narrative behind the act. There, causing or aiding another person to engage in sexual activity is also prohibited, as is permitting it in your premises, observing it, promoting it and advertising it. In Canada, under the current law and proposed amendments, the proliferation of bestiality would still have avenues to spread unaddressed, online and otherwise.
Animal fighting is another illegal activity that does not get significant media attention due to its underground nature and ties to organized crime. The act of breeding, training and fighting animals causes considerable psychological and physiological damage to animals, or may lead to violent premature death.
There is also the theft and deaths of the animals associated with the training of dogs who fight in the arena, including dogs and cats who are used as bait during the training process.
Current wording in the Criminal Code fails to address substantial motivations and processes involved for people engaged in animal fighting. Animal fighting often involves financial investment in the animals being fought and profited off of, and that investment must be recognized as a key motivator for the people behind this brutal blood sport. Operations that breed and abuse animals for fighting may be run in an organized and semi-professional manner, and this needs to be addressed in the law. Furthermore, the current wording only addresses cockfighting pits, and not the more common contemporary design of “arenas” used for dogs. You've heard much about this.
Changes proposed in Bill C-84 will substantially address many of the shortcomings of the current reading of the law. Adding the wording “promotes, arranges” and “receives money for or takes part in” increases acknowledgement of the breadth of processes behind the organizing of animal fighting rings. Including “the training, transporting or breeding of animals or birds” is also an important acknowledgement that the arena is the end game and not the sum of animal fighting. While cockfighting still exists, the new wording that describes the less specific “arena” is essential to bring the law into the contemporary context of animal fighting.
However, Bill C-84's current amendments neglect to include the theft of animals for the purpose of training or fighting other animals. This would be an important inclusion, considering the prevalence of this activity related to animal fighting.
The Animal Protection Party of Canada is unequivocally opposed to the use of animals for sexual gratification and fighting. Animals have been recognized by the scientific community as sentient beings who are feeling and intelligent, who have their own interests and who are expressive of their needs and desires.
The act of bestiality is exploitative of the position of power a human has over a vulnerable animal and is not something the animal can be understood to consent to freely. Animal fighting may be more brutal, merciless and violent, but again it stems from the same power imbalance that places a vulnerable animal at the mercy of someone who has admonished themselves of their duty to provide safety and security for the welfare of animals.
Due to the clandestine nature of bestiality and animal fighting, it is unclear how prolific each may be in Canada. However, there is evidence that such acts are not completely uncommon.
What I regret to tell you is that the case law does not reflect even a faction of the number of cases that are submitted to animal welfare agencies by the public who witness them, let alone the number that are never reported. Amendments to Bill C-84 will hopefully help to prosecute these crimes and empower the public to report them but also help improve the status of animals within the law.
With over 50% of Canadian households having pets as our friends and family, animals deserve better than to be relegated to the property section of the Criminal Code. Bill C-84 will not address this broader issue of animals as property, but it will address some of the most egregious abuses of our relationships with them.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you today.
