Justice Committee on Jan. 31st, 2019

[David Lametti]

Certainly clarity was given on the definitions, the definition of both bestiality and also the fighting provisions. Clarity was given to groups to differentiate the term “baiting”, for example, which doesn't mean baiting for the purpose of fishing, angling or other activities, but rather as a way to incite an animal to fight. Harcèlement is the French word used, and it's actually much more accurate than the old English term “baiting”.

Clarifications were made to make clear that this only applied to certain kinds of activity and not to other kinds of legitimate activity, including artificial insemination and other practices commonly used in the agricultural sector.

Consultations on those sorts of things occurred.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

In a earlier question from Mr. Rankin, the issue regarding animal fighting came up, and in particular its link to organized crime. I wonder if you can help the committee understand a bit better the link between animal fighting and organized crime, and whether the measures in this bill perhaps will help reduce the ability of organized crime to take advantage of animal fighting to raise money.

[David Lametti]

Well, by prohibiting it, that immediately gives police the power to stop it in a way they don't have now. They could do it with cockfighting, but they couldn't do it with other kinds of animal fighting.

There was a study in Ontario in 2016, “Dogfighting: A Problem in Ontario?”, which began to draw the links between organized crime. It's usually gambling and then other associated activities, including drug trafficking and that sort of thing, which kind of happens alongside.

It will help. The fact that the whole activity is now prohibited will give police an additional tool when they have to move in and stop this kind of activity.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Very good.

With regard to bestiality and the definition that has been arrived at, was there any survey done of other common law jurisdictions to ascertain whether there were other effective ways of dealing with the wording that ended up in the bill?

[David Lametti]

It certainly was.

The U.K. has the same definition that sadly was the case in D.L.W., so the U.K. definition does require penetrative sexual activity for its definition of bestiality. The United States doesn't, so common law jurisdictions in the United States that have dropped the penetration requirement are therefore something closer to what we're moving to. In another common law jurisdiction, Australia, being a federal state, it's varied. Some of the criminal law in Australia is state to state, so some of the states have a penetration requirement and some don't.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Those are my questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We will now move to our second round of questions. We'll start with Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Minister, for coming in today. Welcome to our committee. I know that we have a very energetic and quite cordial committee here.

I want to start by saying that I have never really had a pet myself, other than tadpoles. That was my group of pets as a child, much to my mother's dismay. I do appreciate other people's pets just as much as I appreciate other people's kids and that social contract we have in sharing and in really loving and nurturing one another as a community and as a society.

In your opening remarks—and it's something that Mr. Cooper noted as well—there's a link drawn between animal sexual abuse and the sexual abuse of people, including children. This is definitely an important link for us to understand so that we can help protect children from this horrible type of abuse. Can you please elaborate on what that connection is, on what kind of research is behind it and how this bill will impact that?

[David Lametti]

I mentioned in my opening remarks the Canadian violence link conference of 2017, which began to draw out some of the pre-existing data and research on that sort of thing.

To put it quite simply, it's about vulnerability, and both children and animals are vulnerable. A sexual predator often will link both and will use animals as well as children for their own sexual gratification. Sadly, the link is there, and the data is increasingly emerging that there is a link and that people will often move from animals to children and then both.

It's something that I think we need to send a clear signal on in the definition of our Criminal Code provisions: that in all of this kind of activity for sexual gratification—and now the definition turns on that—any kind of contact for sexual gratification is prohibited.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

We talk about really having that fulsome approach to providing safe communities. How do you think this bill will impact that fulsome approach to making sure that our children, our pets and our families are safe, especially in light of BillC-78, which passed through this committee with respect to divorce? Oftentimes, that does impact animals that are sometimes part of the family that is broken up. How does it impact that fulsome approach?

[David Lametti]

As legislators, I think any piece of the puzzle we can improve.... There are many moving parts, with Bill C-78 and the Divorce Act being one, as is administrative justice reform, which you have already looked at, and Bill C-75 and moving forward with that are all a series of parts to improving the criminal justice system and the administration of justice. With all of these pieces of legislation, whether they be social or criminal, or help in some other way, we hope to improve the lot of families and children, and to better protect animals.

I guess there isn't one single answer other than to say that we're trying to make a number of things better, and we will continue to do that.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you. Those are all the questions I have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We will move to Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett]

Minister, thanks for being here today, and congratulations as well.

This is my first time speaking at committee, so I'm joining the program already in progress, so to speak.

To give you some context, my riding is an agricultural one, and my family operates a small cow-calf operation. I'm a hunter here in Ontario. I appreciate the broad scope of consultations that were undertaken, and I heard you list some of the groups that were consulted.

Understanding that the intent has been stated of ensuring that the proposed law doesn't interfere with legitimate or traditional hunting, farming and trapping practices, up to and including indigenous harvesting rights, I wonder what will protect legitimate hunting and angling practices that include baiting from being targeted when the proposed wording in English—albeit I understand there is a more specific word in French—in paragraph 445.1(1)(b) is the following:

in any manner encourages, aids, promotes, arranges, assists at, receives money for or takes part in (i) the fighting or baiting of animals or birds

As you know, fishing and hunting both use baiting.

What protects against that in spite of the preamble and the intention that was stated at the outset?

[David Lametti]

The way that the common law and the criminal law have defined baiting is, I think, more than adequate protection. Again, these concerns were raised by colleagues.

By the way, welcome to this committee, and welcome to the House of Commons.

[Michael Barrett]

Thank you.

[David Lametti]

It's a pleasure to have you. I know how hard it is to win an election, so you deserve every congratulation and your seat here. Well done.

[Michael Barrett]

Thank you.

[David Lametti]

Back to baiting, which we're not doing right now—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Lametti]

—you can rely on the criminal law and common law definition of baiting as being an activity to induce the ire of an animal. Bear-baiting was a traditional activity that would be covered by baiting, whereas putting bait on a hook for the purposes of angling would not be. It's a different meaning, although the same word is used. That's the specific way in which the Criminal Code uses baiting in this. I think you can be assured that there's a tradition of interpretation of the word that protects hunters and anglers who may have to use some form of enticement for what is a legitimate practice.

[Michael Barrett]

So that would include certain minerals that are often used to entice, as you said, a deer, for example, and calls that would be used that provoke responses from the animals that advantage the hunter. Those would not be included here, or they are safe in the common law interpretation from criminalization of those practices.

[David Lametti]

Yes, that is correct. I had said the word in French, harcèlement, which I think more adequately evokes the meaning that we want here, which is a way of provoking an animal to fight, as opposed to what is otherwise an enticement and a legitimate activity.

[Michael Barrett]

Okay.

With regard to farming practices, you'd mentioned artificial insemination as one. Were the groups that were consulted satisfied with the direction that was adopted in the proposed changes?

[David Lametti]

Yes. I have a letter here to my predecessor that was signed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Chicken Farmers of Canada, the Pork Council, and egg farmers, hatching egg producers, turkey farmers, the Canadian Bison Association, the mink breeders, the Canadian Sheep Federation, the Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council. It's a pretty exhaustive crew.