Justice Committee on Feb. 5th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we resume our study on Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting).

It is a great pleasure to be joined by three very distinguished witnesses today.

First I would like to check. Professor Crook, can you hear me?

[Dr. Alice Crook, Adjunct Professor, Health Management, Atlantic Veterinary College, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association]

Yes, I can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Perfect.

We're joined by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, by Alice Crook, who is an adjunct professor of Health Management at Atlantic Veterinary College. She's appearing by teleconference.

Welcome.

[Dr. Alice Crook]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Then we have Ms. Barbara Cartwright, who is the chief executive officer of Humane Canada.

Welcome.

[Barbara Cartwright, Chief Executive Officer, Humane Canada]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Then we have Ms. Camille Labchuk, who is the executive director of Animal Justice.

Welcome.

[Camille Labchuk, Executive Director, Animal Justice]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

We normally start with the person by video conference, because we don't want to lose them.

Professor Crook, you have 10 minutes. The floor is yours.

[Dr. Alice Crook]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the committee.

I'm a member of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, which I will call the CVMA, and I'm currently adjunct professor in the department of health management at the Atlantic Veterinary College, where I teach about animal welfare. I'm a past chair of the CVMA Animal Welfare Committee. I was honoured last year to receive an international animal welfare award from the World Veterinary Association in recognition of my work toward the humane treatment of animals.

Besides animal welfare in general, my particular areas of interest are animal abuse and effective veterinary response, pain management, welfare-friendly veterinary practice and enactment of effective animal welfare legislation. Besides teaching, I've given numerous presentations and written articles on these topics. I was one of two lead authors during the creation of the CVMA website on addressing animal abuse.

The CVMA provides a national and international forum for over 7,200 veterinarians working in all of Canada's provinces and territories as private practitioners, researchers, educators and public servants. In addition, the association counts 7,300 veterinary technicians and technologists as affiliate members. Veterinary practitioners provide services to owners of pets, livestock and other animals. Animal welfare is a priority for the CVMA and its members.

Veterinarians provide unique expertise on the health and welfare of all types of animals, in addition to specific expertise in animal health and disease, and knowledge and understanding of the biology of domesticated and wild animals. Veterinary practitioners provide services and understand the care and management of animals and have practical experience in recognizing signs of suffering in animals.

With respect to animal cruelty and neglect, veterinary practitioners are commonly the first professionals to examine a vulnerable and abused animal, including in cases of sexual abuse and animal fighting. An affected animal may be brought into the veterinary practice by the owner or a family member, or a veterinarian may be asked to assist animal protection officers with an inspection, or a veterinarian may work directly with animal welfare organizations to provide medical care and document evidence after animals have been seized.

The CVMA is a participant in the Violence Link Coalition, which the minister referred to in the committee hearing last week, and is keenly aware of the very well-documented link between abuse of animals and other family members, including child, spousal and elder abuse. To protect the animal victim, and because violence may be a sentinel for other violence that is occurring, it's crucial that veterinarians deal effectively with instances of suspected animal maltreatment.

Through the website that I referred to, the CVMA provides numerous resources to veterinarians on the subject of animal abuse, including sexual abuse and animal fighting. We also have presentations at our annual conference and lots of resources like that. If you wanted to look at that website, it's easy to find: It's just CVMA animal abuse, and it will take you to that.

The CVMA has actively lobbied for a number of years for amendments to the Criminal Code aimed at strengthening the law with respect to animal cruelty. In this regard, CVMA is very pleased to support Bill C-84, which provides an unambiguous definition for bestiality and a much more comprehensive treatment of animal fighting.

The CVMA, along with other interested stakeholders from the agricultural and animal welfare communities, noted in a letter to the Minister of Justice in late 2017 that gaps currently exist in the law with respect to bestiality and animal fighting. I know you have seen that letter.

With respect to bestiality, the CVMA believes that Bill C-84 will close a gap that currently exists that effectively legalizes sexual abuse of animals that falls short of penetration. As proposed in Bill C-84, bestiality means any contact for a sexual purpose with an animal. Bestiality, also called animal sexual abuse, can involve a distressingly wide range of animals and result in a wide range of suffering and injury, including death.

It may or may not include other physical violence, and there may or may not be visible injuries. Signs that may be seen in animals that have been sexually assaulted include traumatic injury to the anus, rectum, vulva or vaginal area; recurring vaginal or urinary tract infections; foreign objects within the genital/urinary tract; and internal injuries. It's certainly worth knowing that these are the very same types of injuries that are seen in children who are subject to sexual abuse.

Bill C-84recognizes that harmful sexual behaviour is an affront to animal welfare in Canada. In CVMA's view, the bill will help support what is referred to as one welfare, that is, benefiting animals as well as addressing the sexual exploitation of other vulnerable members of society, including children.

With regard to animal fighting, CVMA recognizes that the current legislation does not include as an offence maintaining a facility for animals other than cocks, nor does it recognize as an offence the training of animals to fight. The CVMA is pleased that Bill C-84 updates the Criminal Code provisions to deal with these gaps, so as to include all species of animals, and to add the offences of training animals for fighting and profiting from such activities.

For the purpose of this presentation, I will focus on the realities of cockfighting and dogfighting, as these are the species most commonly affected in Canada.

I'm going to talk about sentience for a minute. Animal welfare science has contributed greatly to our understanding of the pain and suffering, both emotional and physical, that animals experience during acts of cruelty. There's abundant scientific support for the existence of emotions in animals, also called sentience, accompanied by the identification and understanding of the brain processes that underlie such emotional experiences. This evidence-based understanding is now being applied in cases of animal cruelty. I'd be more than happy to provide references on this or to answer questions about this.

I'm going to focus now on the suffering involved in dogfighting and cockfighting, where aggressive animals are pitted against each other or against bait animals in a confined space. The fight ends when one animal dies or is cowed or is seriously injured. In dogs, the behaviour of the aggressor includes chasing, biting, wrestling and lunging until one dog is incapable of continuing or is withdrawn. Behaviours of the animal victim, which might be the losing dog or a bait animal, include distress calls, attempts to retreat or escape, defensive behaviour, appeasement gestures, cowering and trembling.

Typical injuries in dog fighting include multiple bites on the face and legs, bite injuries to the belly and groin, or so-called ringing or degloving injuries on the leg when a dog firmly seizes the leg of an opponent who is trying to pull away.

Also typical in fighting dogs are multiple injuries in different stages of healing. These types of injuries are not typical of fighting that may occur between normal dogs. I'd be glad to elaborate on that, if the committee wishes.

I want to speak about the emotional experience of the animals involved, both the aggressor and the victim. They will likely experience anger, fear, panic, helplessness, extreme pain from serious bite and ripping injuries, and lasting pain and discomfort from disabilities, such as nerve, muscle, tendon or bone damage.

You may wonder what a bait dog is, as I've referred to. These are smaller dogs that are used in training dogs for fighting. Cats, rabbits and kittens are also used as bait animals. Clearly, such bait animals suffer extreme injury and fear and panic from which they are unable to escape. Survivors may experience anxiety and fear in circumstances similar to those in which the cruel act took place, such as in the presence of other dogs.

In conclusion, the CVMA is pleased to see notable progress in improving the welfare of animals in the form of amendments to the Criminal Code through Bill C-84. CVMA is actively involved in organizations such as the National Farm Animal Care Council and the National Companion Animal Coalition, as well as with partners such as Humane Canada, allowing us to collaborate with other stakeholders, including industry, to work to ensure that Canada has high standards with respect to the humane treatment of animals.

We are ready to assist the Government of Canada in any way to further enhance legislation to protect animals from cruelty and abuse, and in this way help to build a more humane and compassionate Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you so much, Professor Crook.

I will go back to the order of the agenda right now, and we'll go to Ms. Labchuk.

[Camille Labchuk]

Good morning. Thank you.

I am an animal protection lawyer and the executive director of Animal Justice. We work to ensure that animals have a voice in Canada's legal and political systems. We work with legislators and citizens to improve laws protecting animals and we push for the vigorous enforcement of laws that are already on the books.

We also go to court to fight for animals when necessary and it was in this context that we first started working on the issue of bestiality. Animal Justice intervened in the Supreme Court case of D.L.W., which has brought us all here today. We were the only intervenor. We tried to convince the court to interpret the bestiality offence to include all sexual contact with animals. Unfortunately, we weren't successful.

After the D.L.W. decision came out, we heard from countless Canadians, as I'm sure this committee has as well. Most were shocked and had a really difficult time understanding how it could be that something so appalling as the sexual abuse of animals could be considered legal in Canada.

My own response was that, unfortunately, it was no surprise at all, because federal animal cruelty laws in this country haven't been updated since the 1950s. The D.L.W. case was perhaps the most headline-grabbing manifestation of how problematic our cruelty laws are, but there are countless other ways and other examples I could point to that show how our outdated and poorly crafted laws let down animals.

We've fallen very far behind other western nations and very far behind our own values as Canadians as well. People in this country do care deeply about animal protection, and I think that sentiment only grows as we learn more and more about the cognitive and social capacities of animals and more and more about how they suffer at human hands.

I was pleased to hear the Minister of Justice say at the last committee meeting that Bill C-84 is only a first step towards overhauling our cruelty laws, because clearly, more must be done. When Mr. Erskine-Smith's Bill C-246 was defeated, the government committed to a comprehensive review of the animal cruelty provisions in the Criminal Code. That was more than two years ago, and we're still waiting for news on that review. The public, and I believe most importantly the animals that are victims of cruelty, are deserving of a timeline and clarity on next steps.

To move on to the bill, Animal Justice supports what Bill C-84 does. I won't spend too much time explaining why we do, but I will propose two very straightforward amendments to make Bill C-84 even more effective at protecting individual animals. Rather than just penalizing offenders, we want to ensure that this bill provides tools for law enforcement and judges to protect animals from further harm.

To start with the bestiality provisions, there's no disagreement in this room that bestiality is abhorrent and heartbreaking. We've advocated against it since the D.L.W. case. We assisted Mr. Erskine-Smith with his Bill C-246, which would have closed the bestiality loophole, and with Ms. Rempel in her Bill C-388, which would have done the same thing.

Bill C-84 does close the loophole by ensuring that the term “bestiality” encompasses all sexual contact with animals. That's a very good thing, but it misses one other glaring loophole. That's the fact that right now there's no sentencing tool for judges to ban a person convicted of bestiality from owning, having custody of, or residing in the same location as animals in the future. Judges can already impose this type of ban, which is known as a prohibition order, in the case of somebody who's been convicted of an animal cruelty offence. We think it's very important that judges have this option as a sentencing tool for bestiality offenders as well.

I assume that the reason it wasn't already proposed by the government is simply due to the historical location of the bestiality offence in the Criminal Code. The general animal cruelty offences, apart from bestiality, are in sections 445 through 447, but bestiality is in section 160 of the code, housed with other sexual offences. This is because bestiality historically has been more about punishing deviant sexual behaviour than about punishing or enjoining conduct that's harmful to animals. Prohibition orders—bans on keeping animals—just were never contemplated for sexual offences, so it makes sense that the bestiality offence hasn't had an accompanying tool such as this.

Clearly, however, we're here today because the bestiality offence has evolved and is evolving. Today our rationale for criminalizing it is not just to protect humans but also to ensure the protection of vulnerable animals who cannot consent to sexual conduct. This vulnerability justifies protecting animals from those convicted of bestiality offences as well.

I'm proposing that this can be done by adding the bestiality offence to the sentencing provisions in subsection 447.1(1) of the existing Criminal Code. This would let a judge impose a prohibition order for all of the animal cruelty offences and also the bestiality offence. I will provide the committee with my proposed amendments after this meeting so you can take a look at them.

Many prosecutors will tell you that one of their top priorities in sentencing is not just how much jail time they get for an offender or how much of a fine they can get, but actually getting that prohibition order, so they can keep animals away from individuals convicted of abusing them. I don't think I need to elaborate on why it's a monumentally bad idea to give people convicted of bestiality free and legal access to more animals.

Many other jurisdictions have already empowered judges to use prohibition orders this way in cases of bestiality. This includes our neighbours south of the border: the states of Alaska, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas and Washington.

I will now move to the animal-fighting provisions. Forcing animals to fight, injure and kill one another for the trifling sake of human entertainment also, obviously, deserves our consideration. I was pleased to review the government's charter statement on this piece of legislation. It recognizes that in the proposed animal-fighting section, section 2(b) of the charter, freedom of expression, may be implicated, to the extent that the bill restrains communication between individuals about issues. The government points out that violent expression, such as promoting animal fighting, does not promote the values underlying section 2(b) of the charter, and so wouldn't be implicated here. We see this as a very important recognition that our laws do value animals and preventing violence against them.

I take no issue with the provisions in the bill, but I do propose considering a further amendment to repeal subsection 447(3) of the Criminal Code. That's the mandatory provision that imposes an automatic death sentence on any birds seized from cockfighting rings. This issue was raised at the committee's last meeting.

There is a clear intent in the Criminal Code to outlaw all types of animal fighting. Paragraph 445.1(1)(b) is the main existing animal-fighting offence, and it prohibits all fighting of animals or birds. The code doesn't distinguish between different types. It doesn't matter what species of animal is used.

The amendment in this bill to subsection 447(1) transforms the offence of keeping a cockpit to one of keeping an arena used for any type of animal fighting, so there is a clear intention to bring all animals in equally. Yet subsection 447(3) requires only the killing of birds seized from animal-fighting rings, not for dogs or other species. In our view, this is completely needless, and it ties the hands of authorities when there may be a better option for the birds.

We think the fate of any bird seized should be decided on a case-by-case basis. This is already done for dogs and other animals rescued from fighting rings. There is no principled reason that roosters or birds forced to fight should be automatically killed. It may be appropriate to rehabilitate them. It may be appropriate to send them to a sanctuary, where they can receive lifelong care and still enjoy a high quality of life.

Repealing the provision wouldn't interfere with the ability of authorities to humanely euthanize birds when that situation is deemed to be appropriate. This is already done with dogs, if the need should arise. Provincial legislation generally empowers enforcement agents to do this, with the assistance of a veterinarian who can make the assessment about the bird's well-being.

I'm concerned that there's a real danger the public might lose confidence in the administration of justice, should they see a situation where an automatic death sentence is imposed on the animals for a seemingly senseless reason.

One recent high-profile dogfighting case in Ontario proves this point. I know Mr. MacKenzie will be familiar with it, as it occurred close to his riding.

There was a bust of a dogfighting ring in Chatham, Ontario, in 2015. I will skip through some of the details, but the Crown and the OSPCA sought an automatic death sentence for most of the dogs implicated in the case. The public was outraged by this. I attended those court proceedings. We had some involvement in the case. There were protests outside the courtroom every time there was an appearance. People were shocked that the dogs could be automatically killed without an individualized and appropriate assessment.

In the end, there was a reasonable solution reached. There were new assessments done on these dogs and most of them were sent to a rehabilitation facility in Florida, where most of them are doing pretty well.

The laws in this case are different, but I use this to illustrate the point that there's no public appetite for the mandatory killing of animals, without considering that they are each individuals and that they have individual circumstances and individual needs.

We already treat offenders as individuals in sentencing. That's a well-established principle in criminal law, so I would say it's only fair to treat animals who are victims as individuals too and treat them with compassion, because their lives do matter.

Here's a quick note on how many birds may have been killed under subsection 447(3). There are no national statistics on animal cruelty prosecutions, so it's difficult to know for sure, but here are a few numbers. A 2008 bust in Surrey, B.C., resulted in 1,270 birds being seized and killed, a 2009 bust in York Region resulted in 74 birds being seized and killed, and a 2016 bust near Cornwall resulted in 38 roosters being seized and killed. We're talking about a significant number of lives.

That's it for my submission. I'll be happy to respond in the question period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Cartwright.

[Barbara Cartwright]

Good morning, everyone. I am appearing before you today to express support for Bill C-84 on behalf of humane societies and SPCAs across the country and their millions of public supporters.

Although our name is now Humane Canada, you may know us better as the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. We were founded in 1957, in part, out of this very institution. One of our three founders was a senator, Senator Frederic A. McGrand from New Brunswick. He was a visionary whose keen interest in animal protection and child protection led him to identify early on the direct links between animal violence and human violence and to take action to protect animals and to create a safer society.

In April 2018, we changed our name to Humane Canada. We are the only national organization that represents humane societies and SPCAs, the very humane societies and SPCAs in all of your ridings, upon which Canadians depend not only to care for the abused and abandoned animals in our communities but also to enforce the law, to advocate for greater care and protection of animals, and to provide resources, research and humane education. These local and provincial organizations have served the Canadian public for 150 years, making them one of the oldest and most trusted social institutions in our country today.

We represent 56 diverse members from all 10 provinces and two of the territories, from the largest urban centres to the smallest coastal communities. We are proud to represent the largest SPCA on the continent, which is BC SPCA, who you will hear from on Thursday, and some of the smallest, like Happy Valley-Goose Bay SPCA and the NWT SPCA.

More than 40% of humane societies have a role in the enforcement of our law, so they are community safety officers. They investigate more than 100,000 complaints a year, so Humane Canada has worked for many years to update the Criminal Code of Canada.

As well, it is often your local humane society or SPCA that takes in the victims of these crimes, the animals, to rehabilitate them and find them new homes where they can rest assured of not being victimized any further. Enacting Bill C-84 is a key step in reducing the victimization of animals and vulnerable people in Canada. Strengthening bestiality and animal fighting sections of the Criminal Code deals with two egregious crimes that are also closely linked to human violence and that compromise our community safety.

That said, Bill C-84 is also modest in that it is only addressing issues in the existing offences that have fallen out of step with current society. I will not focus on the suffering that occurs in violent crimes against animals, because it is already well recognized in Parliament that these two offences are crimes and have been part of the Criminal Code for more than 100 years. Rather, I will focus on how these offences have fallen out of step with society's current understanding of the scope of the crime.

I will start with the crime of bestiality. As you have already heard, due to the recent Supreme Court decision in R. v. D.L.W., a legislative gap has opened up, effectively legalizing sexual abuse of animals that falls short of penetration.

Historically, sexual acts with animals was referred to in the Criminal Code as buggery with an animal. In 1955, Canada's criminal laws were amended to introduce the word "bestiality" into the English version of the code, specifying that sex with animals was a vice that was to be criminally sanctioned. The term, though, was not explicitly defined anywhere in the text.

Further revisions were made to the Criminal Code in 1988, outlawing the forcing of children to commit or watch bestiality, as measures of child protection. What did not change, though, with those amendments was the continuing absence of an explicit definition of bestiality in the Criminal Code.

Meanwhile, our social norms as to the acceptance and morality of animal abuse and sexual exploitation have changed over time, to the point where any touching of an animal for a sexual purpose is clearly recognized as deviant behaviour.

I don't know if you've talked to any of your constituents, but no one wants to even talk about this issue at all. It's that much of a taboo in our society. For example, the Combating Paedophile Information Networks in Europe project, also known as COPINE, has a tool that they use to identify the severity of child pornography on the child. It categorizes bestiality along with sadism as the most severe offence in the rating system of the severity of images of child abuse and the impact on the victim.

Bestiality on this scale is defined as “pictures where an animal is involved in some form of sexual behaviour with a child”. It does not limit the act to penetration nor does it limit the impact of the act based on a lack of penetration. Sexual acts with animals shares this highest category of severity with sadism, which in this system is defined as “pictures showing a child being tied, bound, beaten, whipped or otherwise subject to something that implies pain”.

It is also clear now that animals are victims of domestic and interpersonal violence, often used as tools to coerce and control children and intimate partners in abusive relationships.

In December 2018, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection released a report on the direct links between animal sexual assault and child sexual assault. In the 38 cases with reported decisions involving animal sexual assault and child sexual assault, the courts did not adhere to the strict legal definition of bestiality as the term was sometimes applied both to penetrative and non-penetrative sexual acts. In fact, oral sexual acts and manual stimulation of the animal were more common forms of abuse than penetrative acts.

At the same time, society's understanding of animal behaviour, emotion and psychology have evolved. We now know there are physical and psychological aspects of neglect and abuse, particularly sexual abuse. We understand the scope and implications of consent with regard to sexual acts more today than ever before. Simply put, there can be no consent given on behalf of the animal, and the victim cannot report the crime or testify on its behalf.

With these developments, Canadian society is no longer served by using the historic common-law definition of bestiality as buggery with an animal. The definition of bestiality must be broadened to include any act for a sexual purpose.

Sadly, while it may not be evident to everyone, cases of sexual assault of animals are far too frequent, and humane societies and SPCAs struggle with the limited scope of the current definition. Fixing this loophole has been delayed for too long. As Justice R. Abella observed in her dissent in R. v. D.L.W., “since penetration is physically impossible with most animals and for half the population, requiring it as an element of the offence eliminates from censure most sexually exploitative conduct with animals.” However, since the majority of the court found that this was Parliament's historic intent, an act of Parliament moving beyond the common-law definition of bestiality to include all sexually exploitive conduct with an animal is required to fix this gap. We support the simple amendment before you to fix this egregious problem.

The status quo risks normalizing deviant sexual behaviour, decreasing animal welfare in Canada and ultimately increasing the sexual exploitation of vulnerable members of our society, not only animals, but children as well.

Bill C-84 also addresses the historic flaws in the Criminal Code's animal-fighting provisions, which are woefully out of step with current society and inconsistent with the crime of animal fighting as it happens today. Historically, bear-baiting and bull-baiting were both popular blood sports in Canada that were made illegal through the Criminal Code. As these fell out of favour, we saw the rise of cockfighting and dogfighting. Dogfighting is now the predominant form of animal fighting in Canada. However, our laws have not been updated to reflect the evolution of this crime. The limitations and inconsistencies in the current animal fighting provisions are as follows:

First, encouraging, aiding and assisting at the fighting or baiting of animals is already an offence under the Criminal Code. However, the use of the term “at the fighting or baiting of animals” risks our only being able to prosecute those actually caught in the act or at an animal fight. It narrows the offence to just one brief moment in the whole crime. It neglects the training, transporting and breeding of animals, which often are even more cruel than the actual fight itself.

Second, as with other crimes, animal fighting is moving online, and our current laws are not equipped to deal with it. For example, it is no longer necessary to be at an animal fight to be part of the wagering that happens around it. The entire fight may be broadcast online. Worse still is a new form of fighting called trunking. Animals are placed in the trunk of a car to fight to the death while somebody drives them around the streets and stops every once in a while to check in on the animals and report out to all the people betting on the fight. Bill C-84 expands the scope by stating “(b) in any manner encourages, aids...arranges, assists at, receives money for or takes part in” an animal fight.

Finally, maintaining a facility for cockfighting is an offence, but maintaining a facility for all other animals is not an offence. It is an inconsistent approach to an activity that has more than one target species.

Dogfighting is also linked to a range of other crimes. The links to gangs and illegal gambling stand out in this regard. According to a report by the ASPCA in the United States, virtually all dogfight raids involve the seizure of illegal drugs and about two-thirds result in the seizure of illegal weapons. Such raids often result in the arrest of offenders who already have outstanding warrants. The same associations with gangs and criminal organizations exist in Canada, but are often underestimated and under-reported.

The Ontario Veterinary Medical Association recently reported that after the 2014 creation of a major case unit, the Ontario SPCA reported three investigations in less than a year which resulted in 11 search warrants executed in different regions of the province and the seizure of 64 fighting dogs, documents, photos, veterinary supplies, electronic equipment and hundreds of items related to training animals to fight.

Since these activities are linked to criminal undertakings and often linked to organized crime as well, it would be logical public policy to eliminate all animal fighting, and the breeding and the training that support it.

In conclusion, we appreciate the minister's commitment before this committee to ensure all protections are extended to the most vulnerable in Canada. Bill C-84 is an important step forward in the pursuit of this commitment. It provides greater protection to the most vulnerable in our society: animals and children.

On behalf of the community organizations, the humane societies and SPCAs that enforce these laws in many of your ridings, I urge you to support the swift passage of Bill C-84.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you so much to all the witnesses for testifying about an issue that, as you mentioned, is sometimes taboo and difficult to discuss, and we need to discuss it.

We'll now move to a round of questions.

We'll start with Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses.

Let me begin with Ms. Labchuk.

First of all, I think that your proposed amendment with respect to prohibiting an individual convicted of a bestiality offence from owning, having custody or control, or residing in the premises of an animal makes eminent sense. Certainly, in looking at proposed subsection 447(1), it would seem to be the subsection that would be most appropriate for that amendment to be made. I'd be very interested in seeing the text of your proposed amendment. I just wanted to convey that and to thank you for bringing it to our attention.

I want to ask you something with respect to your second proposed amendment, which is to eliminate subsection 447(3), which provides that, in the cases of cocks, they shall be seized and destroyed. Would it potentially make sense, instead of eliminating that subsection, to see that it be amended so that the last part of it, that the cocks shall be destroyed, be removed from the subsection? The proposed subsection does provide authority for a peace officer to seize and take them in.

I was wondering what your thoughts are of potentially such an amendment.

[Camille Labchuk]

I would certainly have fewer concerns with the existence of subsection 447(3) at all if that last part requiring their destruction were removed.

I think the problem here is not that they're being seized, which I think is something that everybody supports, removing them from that situation. The problem is just the automatic death sentence.

I think that law enforcement agencies rely on a variety of provisions in the Criminal Code to justify seizing animals. It can be done pursuant to provincial legislation as well. There would still be existing tools that they could avail themselves of, even if that subsection were removed.

I think it would be fine to leave it in if the last part, destroying the animals, were removed, but if the subsection were deleted in its entirety, it wouldn't significantly affect law enforcement activities in any way. They would still have that ability to seize animals.

[Michael Cooper]

I presume that if an amendment were put forward to delete the latter part of subsection 447(3), you would support a further amendment to expand the applicability of the subsection to animals other than just cocks.

[Camille Labchuk]

Right, to include dogs or other animals.

[Michael Cooper]

Yes, to include dogs, etc.

Would you have any proposed language or proposed amendment that would encompass or satisfy that, having regard for the fact that when we're talking about animal fighting, quite often there are other animals, particularly dogs.

[Camille Labchuk]

Where you're going with this makes a lot of logical sense. The distinction in this subsection of the Criminal Code between birds and other animals doesn't seem to cohere with the rest of what this committee, and this legislation, and what the Criminal Code itself say in distinguishing between them. I think that would have some degree of logic to it. I'd be happy to send something to the committee, after this meeting, with some proposed language.

[Michael Cooper]

Thank you.

Ms. Cartwright or Professor Crook, do you have any comments with respect to subsection 447(3)?

[Barbara Cartwright]

We agree that it is unnecessary and inhumane to destroy animals on an order of law as opposed to individually assessing each animal, determining what kinds of welfare issues they have, and looking at humane euthanasia, if that's required, based on their injuries and based on the recommendation of a veterinarian.

We would support striking down the second half, where the court is directed to actually destroy them, and support broadening that subsection to include all animals.

My only concern is our horizon is short in Parliament, and we would like to get this bill through to royal assent before Parliament rises. This issue has been on the books for a long time. There are other ways, as Camille pointed out, that animals can be seized. For example, under the provincial legislation, even if you're charging under the Criminal Code, you can also seize under the provincial legislation. We're not risking leaving animals in situations like that if we can seize them under the provincial legislation.

[Michael Cooper]

Professor Crook.

[Dr. Alice Crook]

It's really important that animals that have been seized, whether they be dogs or cocks, have a thorough behaviour evaluation to decide what is in their best interests and also for the safety of other animals and people. That may be a veterinary behaviourist or someone else who specializes in animal behaviour.