Evidence of meeting #128 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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Good morning, everyone.
Welcome to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we continue our study on Bill C-84, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding bestiality and animal fighting.
It is a pleasure to be joined today by an illustrious group of witnesses.
By video conference from Winnipeg, we have Ms. Lianna McDonald, Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.
Welcome, Ms. McDonald.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
She is joined by Ms. Monique St. Germain, who is the General Counsel.
Welcome.
Monique St. Germain General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection
Thank you. Good morning.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Good morning.
Here in Ottawa we have, from the Ottawa Police Service, Sergeant Teena Stoddart.
Welcome.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We are going to be joined shortly by Frank Annau from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He is the Environment and Science Policy Adviser. He is at another committee for the moment, but he should be here shortly.
We will start with the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. We will then move to the Ottawa Police Service. Then, provided the witness from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has arrived, he will speak. Then we'll go to questions.
The floor is yours, Ms. McDonald and Ms. St. Germain.
Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Child Protection
Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Chairperson and distinguished members of the committee, we thank you for giving us this opportunity to provide a presentation on Bill C-84.
My name is Lianna McDonald. I am the Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. Again, joining me is Monique St. Germain. She's our General Counsel.
We are here this morning to express our agency's strong support for the bill and to speak specifically about the offence of bestiality.
We have had the opportunity to listen to many of the proceedings so far. We will provide some different information for the committee to consider, coming from the unique lens that our organization has, tied to crimes against children. We will provide examples of what we have seen in real images and in case law.
Our organization is a national charitable organization dedicated to the personal safety of all children. We have been doing this important work for over 30 years.
Our agency operates cybertip.ca, which is Canada's national tip line to report the online sexual abuse and exploitation of children. The tip line is a central part of the Government of Canada's national strategy for the protection of children from sexual abuse and exploitation.
Cybertip launched 16 years ago. Its primary role is to receive and analyze reports on potentially illegal material or activities regarding online crimes against children. It is through this work that our agency witnesses first-hand the ways in which children are being sexually victimized. Since its inception, the tip line has processed over 400,000 reports, and the number of reports has increased steadily over the years. The tip line is now processing, on average, 10,000 reports a month.
To combat the growing online proliferation of child sexual abuse material, our organization developed a new tool called Project Arachnid. This automated crawler and platform helps reduce the online availability of child sexual abuse material, breaking the cycle of abuse. Through Project Arachnid, over 1.6 million notices have been sent to social media and content providers hosting this egregious material around the world.
The vast majority of the images seen through the tip line depict very young prepubescent children, many of whom are preverbal and cannot tell anyone about the abuse. We also know that most children who appear in the sexual abuse material have never been identified by law enforcement.
In 2016, we conducted an analysis of over 40,000 unique images and videos classified by the tip line as child pornography, and 50% of the images involved explicit sexual activity and extreme sexual assaults against children. Among the extreme acts were those involving bestiality. Over a five-year period, Cybertip assessed 192 different sex acts involving an animal and a child, and 80% of those acts did not involve penetration. Oral sex acts were the most commonly seen, in 55% of the bestiality images.
You have already heard from a prior witness that bestiality content along with sadistic material is considered the most harmful form of child sexual abuse material. The following two examples provide a lens into the stark reality of what bestiality looks like when children are involved. While these examples may be difficult to hear, they are harder to see and worse to endure.
In the first example a young girl around eight years old is sitting on a blanket beneath an animal. The image is focused on her and she's completely naked. The girl has one hand around the animal's penis and her mouth around the other end of the penis. In the second example yet another young girl is laying on a bed with her arms behind her head, her legs are spread open and a dog is appearing to lick her genital area.
To better understand the unique challenges faced by survivors of child sexual abuse material, our agency conducted an international online survey. The results were released in 2017 and were based on responses from 150 survivors from around the world. While we did not ask specifically about bestiality, a number of survivors told us their abuser threatened to harm pets or other animals in their life as part of the abuse. To quote from one survivor, “They killed my pets, which they gave to me as a present beforehand in order to make me compliant.” Another survivor said, “I was deeply ashamed. And I had also abused other children/animals myself and was afraid I'd go to prison if it were discovered.”
What was clear from the survey was that all survivors of child sexual abuse imagery face lifelong impacts from having their abuse recorded.
The sexual abuse is horrible in and of itself, but when the abuse includes forcing a child to participate in a sexual act with an animal, the trauma to the child is compounded.
Cybertip also receives reports on online luring. For example, last year the tip line received a report about a young teenager who had been communicating online with an individual. This individual not only asked the child for nude images but also directed the child to engage in digital penetration of the family pet. This is just one of the many examples of the ways in which technology is being used and misused to manipulate and coerce children.
People who seek to victimize children and animals do not limit themselves to acts of penetration, as defined in R. v. D.L.W. With the rate at which we are finding new child sexual abuse material, we know that this is a problem, one that is likely growing. Until the law is changed, children and animals are vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation.
Thank you.
My colleague Monique has a few comments to make.
General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection
Thank you, Lianna.
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson and distinguished members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak today.
Immediately following the D.L.W. decision, our agency undertook legal research to learn more about the cases involving bestiality that have been through the Canadian court system. We limited our research to reported criminal case law, given that D.L.W. was a criminal case.
The key takeaway from the research is that non-penetrative activity was more common in the cases that we reviewed, especially when a child was involved. We were struck by the severity of the cases that we found and by the role technology is increasingly playing in facilitating this type of offending.
One thing to highlight is the difficulty we experienced in obtaining details of the offence. Many of us will shy away from discussing this topic. From the cases we reviewed, this includes judges when they're writing their decisions.
To give you an example, in 2016, a dangerous offender hearing was held in Ontario pertaining to Shayne Lund. Lund's offending spanned almost a decade. By the time he was caught, there were several human and animal victims. Despite that, and even though the case was prosecuted after the D.L.W. decision, very little detail about his animal abuse offending was included. The court referred only to sexual offences against animals and instructing young girls to have sexual activity with animals. This is not enough information to understand the true scope of what went on. It is imperative that we learn more about the way in which this type of offending occurs and how it ties in with other offending.
Another case example that arose after D.L.W. is an offender I will refer to as J.D. In October 2018, he pleaded guilty to multiple child pornography-related offences. J.D. had three other co-offenders. A reported decision has been issued for one of those co-offenders; this was his wife. The judgment describes a homemade bestiality video the two of them made with their dog, as follows.
The dog licks Ms. D.M.'s vagina while she masturbates, and Mr. J.D. tells her various acts that he would like to do with the children, including raping their daughter. Ms. D.M. continues to masturbate throughout.
Ms. D.M. was sentenced for four sexual offences, including a “making child pornography charge” that pertained to four videos that show her sexually abusing their 18-month-old son.
Before closing, I will list four reasons that broadening the definition will improve the situation for both children and animals.
First, the bestiality offence, as framed in D.L.W., does not reflect how bestiality is actually happening. Penetration is not the most common activity, nor is it even possible in some instances.
Second, sexual assault laws have been reformed over the years such that penetration has been removed as a requirement from virtually every sexual offence in the Criminal Code except bestiality and incest. It is well accepted that one's sexual integrity can be violated by any non-consensual sexual contact and that penetration is not a requirement.
Third, the definition of bestiality impacts the application of many other provisions in the Criminal Code. All is set out in our paper.
Fourth, the criminal record of a convicted person should reflect the fact that the contact involved a victimized animal. The best way to do this is to have such contact prosecuted under a provision designed for the crime.
In closing, we see the evidence of bestiality through imagery. We know that most of the children we have seen have not been through the criminal justice system and that the scope of this problem is likely much bigger than any of us realizes. We strongly believe that when any form of bestiality is part of a child's abusive experience, it compounds the trauma and is a separate and distinct harm deserving of its own sanction.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
We will now go to the Ottawa Police Service with Sergeant Stoddart.
Sgt Teena Stoddart
Good morning.
My name is Teena Stoddart. I have been a police officer for 28 years. I was a paralegal before that. Currently I'm a sergeant with the Ottawa Police Service and a member of the Canadian Violence Link Coalition. In 2010 I was seconded to the OPP behavioural science section, where I received specialized training in serial predator crime. I received training from the RCMP and the FBI. I have been volunteering with Humane Canada since 2009 and the Ottawa Humane Society for over 15 years.
I will start by advising the committee that police officers get no training on investigations involving animals unless they are or have been attached to a behavioural science section. In some cases, a sexual assault investigator will attend a conference or training, but it is not required or the norm. In Ontario in 2017, there were 25,981 police officers. OPP behavioural science has approximately 25 specialized police officers. The RCMP would have approximately 10. In my estimate, then, less than 1% of police officers in Ontario would have any type of specialized training in animal abuse or the violence link, yet animal abuse is one of the top signs of a serial sexual predator. In November 2018 I facilitated the first violence link training to police officers. It's a start, but we need resources to see this endeavour come to fruition. We need governments to mandate violence link training.
Speaking to the bestiality section of Bill C-84, this legislation needs to include touching an animal for any sexual purpose in order to make our communities safer for all living beings. The International Journal of Law and Psychiatry conducted a research study. They took a random sampling of over 943 incarcerated men. Half of sexual offenders and a third of child molesters committed animal abuse during adolescence. This same study confirmed that childhood sexual assault abusers use animals to lure and/or groom their victims. An example of grooming would be, “I touched the doggy there, so it's okay for you too.” Then they progress to, “You can touch me where you touched the doggy.” It's a desensitizing process used to normalize sexual touch to children.
Sexual predators educate themselves on grooming methods. That's how they get away with the crimes. They have chat groups and do research just like everyone else. Grooming is a means to get the child normalized to the inappropriate feeling of touch on their private parts. That way, when the predator tries to touch the child, it's not foreign for the child to have their private part touched for reasons other than medical or cleaning. The use of peanut butter took place after an attempt to have a dog penetrate failed. The offender searched online for other ways to involve the dog. This was from a Supreme Court of Canada case.
Predators know that in a lot of these cases, there is little law enforcement can do. I'll give you the example of being called to a residence and the mother saying, about her eight-year-old, for instance, “My child tells me that for the last three years Uncle Johnny has tried to get her to fondle the dog.” All we can do at that point is say, “You'd better not have Uncle Johnny come over anymore.” We have no legal recourse. I have consulted Crowns and various people on this issue. It's the same thing if we get called to a park and a mother says an offender was using a dog to lure or groom a child. There's nothing we can do.
Bestiality is not only found in relation to children. Police services also investigate when one partner forces another into posing or committing sexual acts with an animal and takes pictures or videos it. The abusive partner then blackmails the other into staying with them and putting up with the abuse. The vulnerable spouse will not report to police for fear of retaliation. Many research studies have identified that animals are used to control their victims. We just heard Monique St. Germain and Lianna McDonald state that in their research.
Now I'll talk about the animal abuse side of this. Dr. Rebecca Ledger is Canada's leading expert and court-approved expert on animal behaviour. I have worked with her to deliver police training. She's conducted decades of scientific studies of all kinds of animals. I have an email from her stating that “penetration does not need to occur in order for the dog to suffer”. We had an Ottawa case recently where this came up and she gave expert testimony.
Having the Criminal Code bestiality crime as being committed only if there is penetration puts vulnerable citizens at risk from predators. Broadening the bestiality law strengthens community safety for all living beings. I would submit that it have the same sentencing provisions as section 447.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada does for the lifetime prohibition of animals and restitution. Also, it needs to include their being put on a sex offender registry. Right now bestiality does not fall under that provision.
I'll move to the animal fighting part of Bill C-84. Once again, putting in place proper legislation aimed at stopping the heinous crime of dogfighting will give law enforcement a tool to increase community safety by taking away a funding source for gangs and shutting down their venues to move their guns and drugs. It also removes the means for gangs to recruit young people.
Decades of evidence-based research produce findings such as the fact that illegal gambling gains from dogfighting are substantial. One purse can go for more than $200,000. One dogfighting event can host several animal fights. If you have five animal fights in an event, you're looking at $1 million. This study was produced by Michigan State University.
Gangs also use animal fighting events like we use conventions: for networking, recruiting, and to sell and trade guns and drugs. This is also in the Michigan State University study.
The early introduction to animal cruelty through exposure to dogfighting, especially repeated acts, impacts development and has strong links to later interpersonal violence. This was reported in a 2011 study.
To desensitize young people to gang violence, they invite them to dogfights to acclimatize them to violence. Animal fighting is bloody. Because animal cries and pain are recognized as similar to humans, the thick skin starts to materialize so that violence on a human is not so far-fetched. Many of the youth interviewed in the Maher and Pierpoint 2011 study spoke about using the dogs as weapons against both humans and other dogs for rival gangs.
The Chicago Crime Commission conducted a study and found that 82% of those arrested for animal abuse had prior convictions for assault, weapons or drugs, again demonstrating the violence link. In Chicago, 35% of search warrants executed for animal abuse or dogfighting investigations resulted in seizures of illegal drugs and/or weapons. The commission produced an action alert in August 2004 entitled “Reduce animal violence, reduce all violence: A program to amplify human and animal violence prevention and reduction by targeting dogfighting and animal cruelty”.
Last but not least is the irreparable damage done to bait dogs and the animals that are used for fight dogs. Training techniques are used such as electrocution, kicking, punching, stabbing and beating dogs, in addition to withholding vet treatment for injured dogs and forced fighting. Even if these animals are saved, they often have to be euthanized due to aggressive behaviours or medical issues.
The violence link is extremely prevalent in both bestiality and animal fighting. The research is clear. Where you see evidence of animal abuse there's a great probability that humans are or have been abused by the same predator. We strengthen community safety for all living beings by giving law enforcement the tools to deal with these crimes.
All living beings deserve to be free of violence, and if that violence happens to them, they deserve to be protected by laws, police and the judicial system.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
We are now joined by Mr. Annau from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
The floor is yours.
Frank Annau Environment and Science Policy Advisor, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
Thanks, everyone.
My name is Frank Annau. I'm speaking on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or CFA, as this organization's environment and science policy adviser.
CFA was formed in 1935 to give a united voice to Canadian farmers. It has since grown to be Canada's largest general farm organization, representing approximately 200,000 farmers and farm families nationwide.
Our president Ron Bonnett sends his regrets for not being able to attend this morning, but we both extend our thanks for this opportunity to participate in providing comments on Bill C-84.
Canadian agriculture has a long history of responsible stewardship and devotion to improving animal care standards and performance. Producers care deeply about their farm animals and wish to ensure respectful and equitable treatment for all animals.
This conviction is strongly shared by those of us working within Canada's agriculture community, so much so that in 2016, CFA participated in a working group with the National Farm Animal Care Council, or NFACC, to identify areas within the Criminal Code where greater protection for animals was needed. The research of the working group was thorough and examined distinctions between federal and provincial laws to help inform avenues for updating the code. These proposed updates were addressed in a joint letter to former Justice Minister Wilson-Raybould in December 2017. It was signed by a wide array of stakeholders including the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Chicken Farmers of Canada and the Canadian Pork Council, just to name a few.
The letter formed a united opinion on changes needed to help protect the safety of Canadians and improve the welfare of all animal species. Recommendations included that bestiality mean any contact for a sexual purpose between a person and animal, that provisions dealing with animal fighting explicitly include all species of animals, and that profiting from animal fighting be included under the Criminal Code as an additional offence.
As such, we are pleased to see these recommendations addressed in clauses 1, 2 and 3 of Bill C-84. The extended definition of “bestiality” and provisions related to animal fighting, training, promotion and arena hosting greatly strengthen the security of animal welfare here in Canada. Most importantly, these amendments address the loopholes in the Criminal Code by adding further legal protection for children and vulnerable members of society against sexually exploitation.
As such, the CFA extends its support for the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code under Bill C-84. The inclusion of all animals under provisions specific to bestiality and animal fighting instills the values of agricultural producers by helping to ensure the respectful treatment of all animals.
Thank you for this opportunity to participate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you so much.
Now we will move to a round of questions, starting with Mr. Cooper.
Michael Cooper St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
I'll begin with Sergeant Stoddart. You made reference in your testimony to a recommendation that there be an amendment similar to section 447.1 to provide for a lifetime prohibition with respect to having custody or ownership, or being in the same premises with another animal for those who are convicted of a bestiality offence, as well as in providing that such offenders are added to the sex offender registry.
Do you see any other gaps that ought to be closed, or are you generally satisfied with the amendment to section 160 with the two additional amendments that you put forward?
Sgt Teena Stoddart
I'm generally satisfied with the bill as it is. I don't want to hold up the bill. That is my main concern. I'd rather have it go through without any amendments so that we can have the penetration requirement removed.
However, if it's a simple and easy amendment, then it would assist us greatly, and the Crown attorneys and the judicial system, to have the same provisions as section 447.1 put in there.
Also, right now with bestiality, it doesn't fall under it—and that can be a separate amendment—that they go on the sex offender registry with any conviction for bestiality. Right now, it's not included in that section. That can be added later on when we look at more Criminal Code offences involving animals.
St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
Fair enough.
Sergeant Stoddart and Mr. Annau, there was some testimony over the provision of subsection 447(3) of the Criminal Code, which pertains to confiscation of animals that were subject to animal fighting, and in particular, that subsection is limited to cocks. There was some discussion about whether that should be broadened consistent with the amendment that is to be made to subsection 447(1) by way of this legislation or whether to eliminate that section all together, or whether to amend that section so that it removes the provision that the cocks shall be destroyed upon confiscation.
Sergeant Stoddart, you referenced dogs and the fact that, more often than not, they're in very bad condition when they are reprieved and often have to be put down.
From both witnesses, I'd be interested in your thoughts on what, if anything, should be done with respect to subsection 447(3).
Sgt Teena Stoddart
As a police officer, if we go to a dogfighting event and see animal abuse such as that, we will seize them and take them to the humane society, because they need veterinary care. As regards whether they be put down or not, that is not a decision we make; that's a decision that animal welfare specialists and veterinarians make.
The ban, we can't do. That has to come from courts and they have to be given the authority under the section 447.1.
From a police standpoint, we would always separate the offender from the animal. In most cases, on something as violent as dogfighting—and we know that it's tied to gang violence—we would try to release them on either a promise to appear in an undertaking if they meet RICE and the “4 Ps”. If not, we would take them for a bail hearing where a justice of the peace could put stricter conditions that until their trial they not have contact with the animals that they were found in possession of at the time.
Environment and Science Policy Advisor, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
As I mentioned in my opening remarks here, obviously producers throughout Canada care very much about the welfare of animals. It's a very tragic thing when any of these animals are involved for the purpose of cockfighting.
Specific to their destruction upon being confiscated by authorities, obviously there's more room for conversation specific to what the end point should be under those conditions. When it comes to the actual act, the main priority we have right now is that we have broad industry support for passing these particular amendments, and in terms of any further discussions that might delay them, we support moving forward with the act.
St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
I'll direct my next question to Ms. McDonald or Ms. St. Germain.
You made reference to a dangerous offender hearing in the case of Lund. I thought I heard you reference as well, the J.D. case. Were those individuals prosecuted under section 160 of the Criminal Code?
General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection
Shayne Lund was. The D.M or J.D. case is still proceeding through the courts. I was referring to his wife, who has gone through the courts. I don't believe she was prosecuted under the bestiality offence.
St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
I think your report made reference to the fact that, in terms of some other sections of the Criminal Code, such as sexual interference, while there is a possibility that an individual could be prosecuted under some of these alternative provisions, it's not ideal, and it's not clear whether someone could be successfully prosecuted. Is that right?
General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection
That's correct.
The issue is the word “object”, in both section 151 and section 153, because you need to interpret the dog as an object, which isn't really consistent with the way the law is evolving. Then, there are issues with some of the other provisions, such as corrupting children, in section 172. You need the offence to have occurred in the child's home, and you need the Attorney General's consent, both of which might not apply in a particular circumstance. For the offence of indecent acts, the indecent act has to occur in a public place, and has to be with the intent to insult or offend. For indecent exposure, the person's genitals have to be exposed, in addition to whatever is happening with the animal.
The other one, which the Supreme Court of Canada had not raised, but that we raised in our paper, was the use of section 272, which would be sexual assault with a weapon. In that instance, the animal would have to be qualified as a weapon.