Evidence of meeting #127 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 fighting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Beaches—East York, Lib.
Thanks very much.
Thank you to all three of you and your organizations for your advocacy, without which I don't think we would be here today talking about this piece of legislation.
I want to follow up on Mr. Cooper's questions, but turn instead to this question of a prohibition order associated with bestiality. Obviously, you're supportive, Ms. Labchuk, because you proposed it, but Ms. Cartwright and Ms. Crook, do you have views on this proposed amendment?
9:25 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Humane Canada
Yes, we are obviously supportive of an amendment that would prohibit anyone convicted of sexual assault of an animal no longer being able to be in contact with animals. As long as the offence stays in the sexual offences and the prohibition is put into 447(1) around the prohibition order, that's fine. We do advocate strongly that this particular offence remain in section 160 and isn't moved to the animal cruelty section, because it is a sexual offence and it should be recognized as a sexual offence.
9:25 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Health Management, Atlantic Veterinary College, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association
I would totally agree with that. CVMA would support that, yes.
9:25 a.m.
Beaches—East York, Lib.
I note there is obviously strong support around this table for Bill C-84, and at different times it's been called very important and at different times modest. In keeping with Ms. Crook's very appropriate commitment to build a more humane and compassionate Canada, if you were to put yourself in the shoes of Justice MinisterDavid Lametti, is there something missing in this piece of legislation that you would want to see, apart from the tweaks you've proposed, Ms. Labchuk?
9:25 a.m.
Executive Director, Animal Justice
There have been consultations and reports and draft legislation tabled and introduced and debated, including before this committee and in the Senate, repeatedly over the last 20 years. If you look at the history of those various pieces of animal cruelty legislation, what you see are provisions addressing neglect loopholes in the Criminal Code right now. The mental standard for neglecting an animal that the prosecutor has to prove to get a conviction is that an animal must be willfully neglected, so two terms that are the essential polar opposites of each other: willful and neglect.
The neglect problems with the Criminal Code have resulted in many situations where individuals should have been prosecuted criminally, but were prosecuted under weaker provincial animal protection legislation to avoid concerns over judges acquitting people inappropriately.
Overall, there is a lot more that the Criminal Code should offer to animals, and a lot more that the public should expect from the Criminal Code. It is important, and I agree with you, Mr. Erskine-Smith, that we address animal fighting and bestiality, but completely overhauling this section and taking it out of the, frankly, 1950s, when it was last amended, is appropriate to do in 2019.
9:25 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Humane Canada
We are very supportive of the bill as it stands. While they are modest changes, the reason I focused on the word “modest” is it is something that all the stakeholders can easily get behind. Unfortunately, that is where many of the bills over the last 20 years have died. It's because the stakeholders couldn't agree.
Before you now is a modest update to those sections. We have broad support not just from humane societies, SPCAs, but from animal welfare, veterinarians, from all of the agricultural communities. It meets the needs of all of those stakeholders. That's really important to focus on in this case.
That said, we fully support and have sent letters to the justice minister many times over the last few years, supporting the concept of a bigger and broader engagement on how we actually make the entire Criminal Code effective for the protection of animals. We do tend to zero in on the animal cruelty section, but there are other things that can also be done, so it needs a comprehensive overhaul. We are pleased to see that the minister committed to continuing that work and we'll continue to advocate for that.
February 5th, 2019 / 9:30 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Health Management, Atlantic Veterinary College, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association
CVMA has long supported changes to the Criminal Code regarding the abuse and neglect of animals. We also see this bill as a good start, addressing two particularly egregious sections. We most recently supported Bill C-246 and the provisions there. We see that as a longer-term goal and it's really important to get the provisions in Bill C-84 passed.
9:30 a.m.
Beaches—East York, Lib.
My last question picks up on this idea of a bigger conversation and Bill C-84 as a first step. I want to actually note that this is a non-partisan issue, because I've had conversations with Michelle Rempel, with Len Webber, with Murray Rankin, members of all parties who care about ending animal cruelty. They want to have conversations around a table to say, “Let's make this a non-partisan issue. Let's bring stakeholders from all sides in and let's hammer out some consensus to move forward in a more significant way.”
You can maybe get a glimpse of what that could look like around this table, where we're focused on these two specific concrete provisions. But we're not able to talk about how we can better protect animals beyond the confines of these two specific provisions, as far as it goes, and so we get a piecemeal approach. We get Bill S-214 on cosmetic testing. We get Bill S-238 on shark finning. We get Bill S-203 on cetaceans in captivity. We get Bill C-84, which focuses on two specific provisions in the Criminal Code.
I guess the fundamental question I have is in terms of thinking of a way forward. Do you think it would be useful to strike a special all-party parliamentary committee to look at animal protections more broadly, to make recommendations to the government so we can see a piece of government legislation that implements much broader reform, where consensus has been forged across party lines and across a broader set of stakeholders?
I'll go around the table as well. Ms. Labchuk.
9:30 a.m.
Executive Director, Animal Justice
We would absolutely support that type of approach. I think that having some body to examine these issues from a bird's eye view and to think more holistically about how we can integrate animal welfare and protection issues into many facets of our federal laws, not just the Criminal Code, is very important.
I would also note that it's become clear to me in my work as an animal protection lawyer that we have an issue in this country, in that animal welfare is divided between the federal level and provincial level, and even municipalities have a role. It becomes a situation where there can be a lot of buck passing. A province might say, “Well, that's up to the feds to do,” and the federal government often likes to say, “Well, that's a provincial responsibility.” Sometimes people use that as an excuse to say that a bill might be unconstitutional or it steps outside of its jurisdiction.
I think it's seeing the federal government take a greater leadership role in uniting provinces, in examining what we have at the federal and provincial levels, where the gaps are, where we can coordinate more. How we appropriately fund animal law enforcement is a huge piece of this puzzle. Right now it's largely funded by private donations given to SPCAs and humane societies. Those are all issues that such a committee could examine to the benefit of animals.
9:30 a.m.
Beaches—East York, Lib.
Really quickly, from the rest of the witnesses....
9:30 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Humane Canada
We absolutely support it. There have been laws on the books protecting animals from cruelty since one year before Confederation. Nova Scotia had the first laws on the continent. It has long been an important part of Canadian values to protect animals.
What we have seen over the last 20 years is this piecemeal approach, where we have to bring in just one bill, one bill, one bill. It's worked. We had to do it, but the bigger ones, the more thorough thinking through of how we can better protect animals in Canada and reflect Canadians' values in the Criminal Code have not happened.
We would very much support bringing together all stakeholders. It can't just be a section of our communities. It has to be everyone together to make that lasting change.
9:30 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Health Management, Atlantic Veterinary College, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association
Some other countries have quite comprehensive animal welfare frameworks, like New Zealand, for instance, which has an excellent one. That's exactly what it consists of. It's a comprehensive, consultative approach that tries to address the broader issues as well as the issues on the ground, such as veterinarians, as we deal with and that animal protection organizations deal with.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here.
I'd like to start with you, Ms. Cartwright and Humane Canada, and acknowledge with thanks your organization's 40 years of advocacy and all of your member humane societies. You do amazing work for which we all should be grateful.
For Canadians watching at home and others, you correctly said that Bill C-84 is a modest bill. Dr. Crook has talked about it being a first step and Ms. Labchuk has called for a complete overhaul. Canadians might ask why we are here with these two clauses, essentially. The answer, of course, is that the Liberal majority chose to defeat Mr. Erskine-Smith's Bill C-246, which would have been more comprehensive, which would have done the comprehensive reform that the minister has once again committed to, but we are two years later and no closer to that review. I really appreciate and support Mr. Erskine-Smith's suggestion that there be an all-party, non-partisan commitment to this, some kind of committee, and I would be pleased to be a part of it.
The first question relates to what Ms. Cartwright said about the prevalence, the connection between sadism and bestiality being most impactful upon children. Professor Crook, you also, in a letter supporting Bill C-246, wrote as follows for veterinarians: “There is overwhelming evidence of a direct link between abuse of animals and violence towards people, especially other members of the family—children, spouse, elders.” What is that evidence? Both of you have referred to it. I'd like you to speak a little more, each of you, about where that comes from, perhaps starting with you, Ms. Cartwright.
9:35 a.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Humane Canada
Certainly. There has been about 50 years of research into the links, when an animal is suffering, with what is happening around that animal and the kind of suffering that happens there. A great deal of it has come out of the United States, until very recently. We now have a professor here in Canada, Dr. Amy Fitzgerald, who is at the University of Windsor. She is doing the same or similar research that we see in the United States, to get us some Canadian data on the links, particularly between animal violence and domestic and interpersonal violence. It's not surprising that it's similar to what we see in the States. What is surprising is that it's actually a little worse here. By that, I mean, the instances of women reporting that when they're in a violent situation, their animal is also in a violent situation. Sixty-five per cent of women report delaying leaving a violent situation because of their animal, because of concerns about the safety of that animal. The animal is used to extort or coerce the partner or spouse and the children, typically, into different acts that they may not want to commit. It is also shocking, in the cases of those women who did leave, that almost a third of them report going back for the animal, to either check in on it or to resume living with the abuser because they cannot get their animal out.
We see very strong relationships between those two forms of violence because, of course, an animal is part of the family. It's a vulnerable part of the family and as you likely all know, there's a great deal of love that goes between humans to their animals. It's a very easy target for an abuser to use to coerce the abused, unfortunately. There is a great deal of evidence.
There is also the formation of the Canadian Violence Link Coalition here in Canada. It was started last year. Humane Canada helped bring that to the forefront. We also launched the first conference in order to study and bring forward all of the different academic research that's going on and that supports the links between animal violence and human violence. We see it ranging not only from domestic violence, interpersonal violence, but all the way up to probably the classic that most people think of, the serial killer. While not all abusers are serial killers, all serial killers are animal abusers. That evidence exists and it's a common step up from animal abuse if they have a propensity for serial violence. I shouldn't just say serial killers; it's serial violence; it's serial rapists as well.
9:35 a.m.
Adjunct Professor, Health Management, Atlantic Veterinary College, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association
I would add that the way we see this really direct link is first of all, as Ms. Cartwright said, that women will delay leaving situations because of fear for the safety of their animals.
Quite a few veterinary practices and animal welfare organizations have arrangements with domestic violence shelters to take in animals when they can't.... Most shelters will take in animals when the women and the children are there. Veterinarians see that. As far as the link with bestiality is concerned, it's one of the ways that abusers try to control their victims, whether they're animals or children, so both. What is documented, unfortunately, is that abusers will force the child or the spouse to interact with animals in a sexual way to humiliate them, to witness the injury to the animals. The animals, the children and maybe the spouse are vulnerable, so it's all linked to the abuser's approach of trying to control and intimidate the animals. There's a lot of documentation for that.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Thank you. I appreciate that.
In the short amount of time....
Am I out of time?
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
9:40 a.m.
NDP
