Evidence of meeting #126 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was animals.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the first public meeting in the new year of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It is an incredible pleasure to welcome our new Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Mr. David Lametti, to our committee for the first time.
Welcome, Minister.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Congratulations on your appointment. I know we are all very excited to work with you.
And it's also a pleasure to welcome Mr. Barrett to our committee.
Welcome, Mr. Barrett, and congratulations on your election.
Michael Barrett Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
It's a pleasure this morning to be joined by Ms. Schulte as well.
Welcome.
The minister this morning is joined by Mr. François Daigle, the associate deputy minister.
Welcome, Mr. Daigle.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Our returning champion, who I think has been here now a dozen times, is Ms. Laurie Wright, the senior assistant deputy minister.
It's always a pleasure to have you, Ms. Wright. Welcome.
Laurie Wright Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
The reason the minister and the department are here this morning is that the committee is commencing its study of Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting). For that reason, I'm also very pleased that Mr. Erskine-Smith is joining us today, and will be joining us for our hearings on C-84, as he was instrumental in helping to develop this bill.
Welcome, Mr. Erskine-Smith.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Mr. Minister, you have your opening statement, and the floor is yours.
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I'm very pleased to be here today, appearing for the first time as the Minister of Justice, to discuss Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting).
The amendments in the bill reflect our government's ongoing commitment to examine our criminal justice system to ensure the laws protect our most vulnerable and reflect our shared values.
This in-depth review of our criminal justice system has resulted in vital bills studied and thoughtfully amended by the committee. I want to thank you for the important work you do and the work you will be doing on Bill C-84.
This bill before is a result of significant consultation and collaboration with key stakeholders. We have received broad support on these amendments from child protection groups and organizations like the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
I would like to thank them for their advocacy and support in this endeavour, which truly reflects a common-ground approach to addressing a critical gap in the Criminal Code's bestiality offences. I would also like to recognize the advocacy of many of our colleagues, including, in particular, Mr. Erskine-Smith.
Bill C-84, is a direct response to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the R. v. D.L.W., where the court found that in the absence of a statutory definition in the Criminal Code, the common law meaning of bestiality is limited only to penetrative sexual acts.
That is why Bill C-84 seeks to add a definition of the term “bestiality” to section 160 of the Criminal Code, in order to make clear Parliament's intent of ensuring that bestiality offences apply to all acts, for a sexual purpose, with an animal.
As a side note, I would add that the expression “for a sexual purpose”, which appears in a number of other Criminal Code provisions—namely, in reference to child pornography in section 163.1, luring a child in section 172.1 and making sexually explicit material available to a child in section 171.1—is well understood by the courts and does not apply to legitimate animal breeding practices such as artificial insemination or veterinary practices.
In its 2001 decision in R. v. Sharpe, the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted the expression in the context of child pornography to mean an act that, viewed objectively, was committed for the sexual gratification of the accused. The expression is therefore used in Bill C-84 to interpret the offence of bestiality.
This is a crucial amendment to ensure the protection of children from sexual abuse, an objective that has always been a priority for our government and indeed all parliamentarians.
Thanks to the important work by the Canadian Violence Link Coalition, including the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, we know more about the link between animal sexual abuse and the sexual abuse of children, as well as other forms of violence. Research shows that bestiality offences are not isolated events, but rather are usually part of a pattern of vicious treatment of both children and animals. Bill C-84, therefore, sends a strong message that bestiality is one of the most severe and violent acts against children, vulnerable persons, as well as animals and that it has no place in Canadian society.
In addition to closing that gap in the Criminal Code, the bill seeks to strengthen animal protection measures by broadening the scope of legislative provisions that prohibit animal fighting.
Currently, paragraph 445.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code makes it an offence for anyone to encourage, aid or assist the fighting or baiting of animals. Furthermore, under section 447 of the Criminal Code, it is an offence for someone to build, make, maintain or keep a cockpit on premises that they own or occupy, or to allow a cockpit to be built, made, maintained or kept on such premises.
An individual who commits any of these offences is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term of up to five years or, on summary conviction, to a fine of up to $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of up to 18 months or both.
For many Canadians, animals are a meaningful extension of the family, and we have an obligation to protect them. Bill C-84 proposes two important amendments to strengthen the criminal sanctions against animal fighting in the Criminal Code.
First, it amends the animal fighting offence in paragraph 445.1(1)(b) in order to address a gap. Currently, the offence prohibits anyone from encouraging, aiding or assisting the fighting or baiting of animals, but the bill seeks to broaden the offence to specifically prohibit profiting from animal fighting and training, transporting or breeding animals for the purposes of baiting or fighting.
By clearly outlining the prohibited offences proposed, the bill will make it easier for law enforcement to lay charges and for the Crown to prosecute those offences.
Second, the bill amends section 447 to expand the offence related to the keeping of a cockpit to include any arena for animal fighting. Currently, under the Criminal Code, the offence applies only to a cockpit, excluding arenas for the purpose of dogfighting and other types of animal fighting.
These are important changes because they clearly prohibit a wider range of activities often associated with this terrible crime.
Due to its underground nature, it is not known how often animal fighting, especially dogfighting, takes place in Canada. However, we do know that it is a significant problem linked to organized crime, including illegal gambling and the illicit trafficking of drugs and weapons. Moreover, the dogs that are used in fights are often seriously wounded or killed. The proposed reforms would make clear that animal fighting is a cruel and abhorrent activity that simply has no place in Canadian society.
1 would also like to take this opportunity to clarify that these reforms to the animal fighting provisions do not apply to any legitimate activities, such as hunting, training, or using a dog for protection. This is important and I know that many Canadians will wish to be assured of this fact.
Before concluding, I'd like to acknowledge that some stakeholders and parliamentarians feel that Bill C-84 does not go far enough to strengthen animal protection measures.
Bill C-84 is a targeted response, based on extensive consultation, in order to protect the most vulnerable members of society through a common approach. The bill addresses two specific issues with widespread support from the public, the provinces and territories, child protection stakeholders, as well as animal welfare advocates and members of sectors that make use of animals. The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and 10 agricultural stakeholder groups have all called for amended animal fighting and bestiality provisions.
In closing, I'd like to remind the committee that the impact of these reforms will be to provide significantly greater protection for children and vulnerable persons, as well as for animals. While the proposed reforms in this bill are targeted at two of the most serious issues, our government is committed to ensuring that all appropriate protections are extended to the most vulnerable and accordingly will continue our comprehensive review of the criminal justice system for further amendments.
I'm looking forward to hearing from Canadians on this, and I'm sure I will hear from the committee on this.
Thank you for your time today. I'd be happy to take any questions you may have.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Minister.
As agreed, we will have two rounds of questions.
Mr. Cooper will start us off.
Michael Cooper St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister. Once again, congratulations on your appointment. I know you bring a great deal of experience, and I have every confidence that you're more than capable of fulfilling your duties as Minister of Justice, so again, congratulations.
St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
With respect to the bestiality loophole following the D.L.W. decision of the Supreme Court, my issue is not with Bill C-84. I fully support closing the loophole. I think all Canadians—the majority of reasonable Canadians—would support closing the loophole. My issue is with the time that it has taken to introduce legislation to do so.
The decision of the Supreme Court was rendered in June of 2016. It is now January 2019. I know, Minister, that you've just been appointed, so I'm not faulting you personally for it, but we're now two and a half years in. By the time this legislation goes through the Senate, this loophole will probably have existed for three more years.
As you pointed out, we're talking about bestiality. We're talking about what is often a pattern of behaviour that involves the most vicious of behaviour towards animals and children. That's a common theme that we find: children are more often than not the victims. Indeed, according to the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and their December 2018 report, of the 21 cases they reviewed, more of the cases did not involve penetrative acts. Of the cases that didn't involve penetrative acts, all of them involved sexual abuse of a child.
Minister, I guess my question is simply, what has taken so long?
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
It is a fair concern to worry about the length of time legislative reform takes. Certainly, I agree with you, and thank you for your question. This is a serious issue. I think the important thing to underscore from the beginning is that we are dealing with it. You are right—I agree with you—that this is a serious issue that needed to be addressed, and we are addressing it.
There are other measures in the Criminal Code that obviously protect children against sexual exploitation. There are a number of provisions with which you are familiar, dealing with sexual interference, sexual exploitation, corrupting children, indecent acts, etc., as well as the sexual assault provisions and aggravated sexual assault provisions. There is a group of existing provisions that do protect children. There are also provisions in the Criminal Code that protect animals where there's harm to the animal.
We are filling a gap. I wouldn't use the term “loophole”, but we are filling a gap in the act and we are moving forward with it.
St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
Thank you, Minister.
Not to belabour the point, but I do think it needs to be put on the record that in Bill C-84 the definition provided is the following:
In this section, bestiality means any contact, for a sexual purpose, with an animal.
In 2017, my colleague, the honourable member for Calgary Nose Hill, introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-388. The wording in Bill C-388 is as follows:
In this section, bestiality means any contact by a person, for a sexual purpose, with an animal.
Again, it's identical language. Why didn't the government get behind Bill C-388 more than a year ago?
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
I salute the work done by our colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. It is true that the purpose, at least regarding bestiality, was quite similar. We've gone further in this bill to add another area of protection—the animal fighting provisions—that were also deemed to be important by a number of different intervenors and advocates in the area as something that everybody could get behind and agree upon.
This bill actually goes further, but I do salute the work that Ms. Rempel has done in putting forward that particular bill.
Beaches—East York, Lib.
Thanks very much, Minister, for being here. I also appreciate the support you gave to Bill C-246 before you were a minister.
Your home province of Quebec has recognized that animals are sentient. I want to get at some of the general principles for why we want to protect animals in the Criminal Code. You noted in your comments that animals are oftentimes an important part of our family. Would you agree that animals are sentient?
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
The evidence I have seen, I think, is increasingly going in that direction. I'm not an expert. I can only base it on what I read. To the extent that I have seen the same kinds of studies that you have, it seems to me that is where the scientific evidence is going.
Beaches—East York, Lib.
In terms of the moral wrong that we're aiming to address in the Criminal Code, is it a crime to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to animals because they're sentient—they think and feel and can suffer pain—or is it because they're the property of someone else?
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
That's a larger question, and I think that question needs to be addressed as part of our ongoing look at these provisions generally. We've committed to that. My predecessor committed to that, and I'm happy to commit to the same thing moving forward. I certainly am quite open to reforming all of the provisions generally, but that will take time. It will take time precisely because of the questions that you're raising—important scientific questions and important ethical questions about our relationship to animals.