Justice Committee on Jan. 31st, 2019

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith]

I think it gets to the bottom of what we want the Criminal Code to look like in terms of protecting animals, and that will depend upon the first principles of what we want to protect in the first place. I think it's important, when we know and the evidence is that animals can think, feel, love and suffer, that our laws should reflect that reality.

Attempts by previous Liberal justice ministers have been made to introduce significant reform to the Criminal Code with respect to the animal cruelty provisions, including by Justice Minister Anne McLellan, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, and Justice Minister Irwin Cotler. These three previous attempts were more substantive than Bill C-84. Do you think Bill C-84 is sufficient?

[David Lametti]

I think it was made clear by my predecessor and I think it was made clear in my opening remarks, that in Bill C-84 we have picked two areas on which there is widespread agreement, and which we could get done now. We are filling a gap in one case, and we are addressing a practice in another case—animal fighting—that we don't want to see.

I agree that there are larger, deeper ethical questions and legal questions that really do go to the heart of the way in which we envisage society and our relationship to ourselves, amongst ourselves, and to animals. Those are larger questions that need to be addressed.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith]

It's fair to say then that this is a first step—I would say a fairly modest first step, if I'm being generous—and that as justice minister you are committing to additional consultations and to doing more where those consultations find some consensus and find a way forward.

[David Lametti]

As my predecessor also stated, we're going to keep moving forward with this dialogue and to try to make our Criminal Code and society better.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith]

In keeping with that theme of additional consultations, I want to read a letter from November 22, 2004. It says:

Canada's animal-based sectors, as represented by the undersigned, wish to express our support for the swift passage of certain amendments to the Criminal Code: Cruelty to Animals provisions....Specifically, we are calling for the reintroduction and adoption of the measures contained in Bill C-22....

That was signed by over 25 animal-use groups, including the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Dairy Farmers of Canada. It was not signed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, but CFA did note its dismay when similar measures didn't pass into law.

It seems to me that there was a significant consensus in 2004 amongst animal-use groups to be more bold and to do more for animals in the Criminal Code. Do you think that with sufficient work on your part, you could get back to that consensus?

[David Lametti]

I'm not going to speak about a consensus that happened in 2004. I wasn't privy to those discussions. I was, quite frankly, doing other things at the time, so I'm not fully versed on all of those various discussions that happened in 2004.

What I will commit to doing is keeping dialogue open with various groups, including a number of the groups you've mentioned. I know they have weighed in on this particular piece of legislation and are supportive, and we will continue to be open to all people who have an opinion on the matter.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith]

My last question will just pick up on that point of a dialogue. This committee is going to be engaged in a few meetings of study and legislative review of a bill that is effectively one page and that addresses two very narrow issues in the Criminal Code. It's an important bill in the sense that it addresses a Supreme Court ruling of some note, as my colleague from the Conservative Party addressed, but it doesn't allow for a broad conversation at a committee like this. It doesn't allow for a multitude of stakeholders to come in and not just talk about these provisions in the Criminal Code, but ask, “How do we, as a society, better protect animals across this country?”

Do you think it would be more productive, in terms of dialogue, to have a committee like this, whether the justice committee or a special all-party parliamentary committee devoted to animal protection, to say, “Let's bring in witnesses across the country, because we, as parliamentarians—it doesn't matter what party what party we're from—care about animal cruelty”, to see what consensus we can forge to then introduce a new bill that would potentially do more for animals based upon significant consensus and a larger dialogue that could take place at a parliamentary committee? Do you think that would be a productive way forward?

[David Lametti]

My immediate priority is the passage of this legislation. The two practices that are identified in this piece of legislation are important to prohibit and define in each respective case. I'm open to discussing other ways forward.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith]

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Rankin.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'd like to start by saying congratulations to you as a new minister. We're very glad to have you here, and I'm looking forward to working with you on this committee.

I think my colleague, Mr. Erskine-Smith, referred to this as a modest first step, which I think is a generous assessment of this bill. These are two things out of a long list of things that critics have been suggesting and promoting for many, many years. Indeed, we've had animal cruelty provisions in our Criminal Code since 1892, with only modest amendments since then, so I suppose it's a step forward to have these.

Building on what my colleague just asked, I'd like to ask you whether we ought to be moving toward a place where we're not simply treating animals as property, but are moving to put them in another part of the Criminal Code for a more comprehensive reform. I've heard you say this is the first step, that there's more to do, and that you're open to doing that. I'd like to have you tell us when you see that broader reform that you seem open to beginning. When will consultations begin? When can we expect more comprehensive reform?

[David Lametti]

Well, I've just started in this job, and I have to admit that I enjoy the challenge. That said, I'm not going to commit to a particular timeline today. I have, in good faith, said that I'm open to discussing moving forward in the future and to addressing the very concerns that you have raised, some of the deeper ethical considerations that may very well be evolving in society in a way that is more favourable to the positive treatment of animals.

I'm certainly open to that discussion, but I'd rather not commit today to a specific timeline.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

On the animal fighting provisions that you described, you mentioned in your remarks that animal fighting has been linked to organized crime, gambling, illicit trafficking of drugs and weapons. What can you tell us about the involvement of organized crime in this activity in Canada?

[David Lametti]

There is a link that has been drawn. There isn't as much data as perhaps there might be, simply because a lot of it is covered up. I will admit to a data gap there, but a link has been drawn with enough credible information to say that it's an important factor. We're also protecting the animals themselves here, too, and these are practices that we simply don't want to have.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

You mentioned protecting the animals themselves just now, Minister. You've amended subsection 447(1), which concerns the arena for animal fighting, to broaden it from cockpits for fighting with birds to include dogs, as you mention.

Why didn't the bill go further and deal with the other subsection, 447(3), which currently has not been changed? It allows peace officers to seize cocks in the cockpit or on premises where a cockpit is located, but that didn't get changed. What do we do with dogs? Under the current section, you can seize the animals and if necessary have the cocks destroyed. I don't see any changes to the provisions that deal with dogs.

Is that an oversight that this committee may wish to amend, or is there no problem?

[David Lametti]

There is a traditional distinction between birds and animals that runs through the common law. There is a provision specifically for roosters, for cocks, because sadly they are often very damaged in the fighting, and it is often the case that they're also fed with steroids to make them more aggressive. Quite sadly, the most humane response to seizing the birds is to put them down. That's not necessarily the case with all other animals.

Remember that animals will also be dealt with under provincial legislation. There are protections for animals under provincial law, which still abides even without this.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I understand that.

[David Lametti]

The distinction there is because of that. Certainly if the committee wants to look at that as part of its study and has suggestions in that regard, we would be open to that.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

It did seem odd that you changed, appropriately, the section to deal with keeping an arena for animal fighting in 447(1), but then in 447(3) where you can seize one kind of animal, birds, you don't change it to deal with dogs.

The same thing you've talked about with respect to steroids and the frequent need for birds to be destroyed, sadly, occurs when dog fighting happens. I think it seems to me to be a deficiency. To suggest that the provinces have overlapping powers, yes, that's true, but it just seems that we might as well finish the job in 447(3) when we're here.

[David Lametti]

I think it's open for the committee to study that. My understanding is that there is always potential to rehabilitate a dog in a way that doesn't exist with a rooster.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thanks very much, Minister, for being here today, and congratulations on your appointment. I look forward to working with you.

One of the questions came up earlier regarding the amount of time this has taken to get put into legislation and come before our committee. I know that, in your opening remarks, you mentioned the level of consultations that took place with a number of stakeholders. I'm wondering if you can elaborate on that and the fact that it took some time to hear from stakeholders to come up with legislation that would have their confidence.

I know you mentioned the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and a number of others. I'm wondering if you can just go through the process of the consultations, which took some time to get their input.

[David Lametti]

It was undertaken before my watch began in this role, so I can't go into all of the details of the way people and groups were consulted, but I can say that we consulted the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture representing 200,000 Canadian farm families. Other groups provided opinions in writing to the department, to the committee—hunters groups, etc.

A wide variety of people were consulted. A wide variety of experts were consulted. Again I wasn't the one leading those consultations, so I can't give all of the details on that.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I understand that.

Are you aware of changes that may have been made based on the input of those various organizations and groups?