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.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We will now reconvene our session of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as we study Bill C-84.
We are delighted to be joined today on our next panel by Mr. Jordan Reichert from the Animal Protection Party of Canada, who is the West Coast Campaign Officer.
Welcome, Mr. Reichert.
February 7th, 2019 / 9:40 a.m.
Jordan Reichert West Coast Campaign Officer, Animal Protection Party of Canada
Thank you.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
By video conference from British Columbia very early in the morning, we have Mr. Shawn Eccles, who is the senior manager of cruelty investigations for the B.C. SPCA.
Welcome, Mr. Eccles.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We always start with the person by video conference just in case there's a technological problem that causes us to eventually lose you.
Mr. Eccles, the floor is yours. You have up to 10 minutes.
9:40 a.m.
Senior Manager, Cruelty Investigations, BC SPCA
Good morning, Chair and honoured members of the parliamentary committee. I will be reading from a prepared statement, so forgive me if I'm looking down a bit.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the amendments this morning.
My name is Shawn Eccles. I'm the senior manager of cruelty investigations. I'm currently in my 40th year with the British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the B.C. SPCA, a proud and active member of Humane Canada.
I oversee a team of 41 full- and part-time animal cruelty investigators or animal protection officers. All animal protection officers with the B.C. SPCA are sworn in as special provincial constables under the Police Act and, as such, are empowered to enforce the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the cruelty to animal provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada and any other laws relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals.
In addition to my work at the B.C. SPCA, I've also represented Humane Canada, formerly the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, as a council member and now as a board member with the Canadian Council on Animal Care. I have received the B.C. SPCA Stu Rammage award as lead investigator on a cockfighting investigation in 2008 and again in 2012 for the Whistler sled dog investigation. I was awarded the B.C. SPCA lifetime achievement award in 2012.
I have been asked to speak and give my perspective as a member of a small group of law enforcement professionals that garner little recognition or respect but are held to the same standard and are required to comply with the same rules of evidence as our colleagues in other areas of law enforcement. As animal protection, welfare and control officers, we bear witness to atrocious incidents of cruelty and neglect on a daily basis, yet nothing prepares you for the disturbing evidence awaiting you in investigating offences against animals solely for the purposes of exploitation and enjoyment or the sexual satisfaction of a select few individuals.
I support the amendments as proposed for the following reasons.
The current interpretation of bestiality— Regina v. D.L.W., June 9, 2016—does little to support officers investigating and reviewing hours of videos depicting sexual acts on all manner of animals by humans, which if perpetrated on non-consenting human partners would be considered sexual assault. Added to this is that often the acts are performed by the vulnerable sector, primarily women and children, at the coercion of their abusive spouses or so-called caregivers. One such file was investigated in November 2017, in which the evidence gathered by investigators was pictures and videos of a woman allowing an animal to perform sex acts on her. No charges were submitted to the Crown as there was no evidence of penetration.
While the number of investigations may pale when compared to other complaints received, we've received 30 bestiality complaints since June 10, 2016. The impact on resource-depleted agencies should not be ignored. These are offences that require specialized skills. Animal vaginal and anal swabs are taken and sent for forensic testing at labs both in Canada and in the United States. The B.C. SPCA has developed a relationship with a U.S.-based forensic veterinarian so that veterinarians contracted with the B.C. SPCA to assist in these investigations may regularly communicate with their international counterparts in order to learn about forensic veterinarian medicine and the collection of evidence.
Our officers collaborate with board-certified animal behaviourists when animals are believed to have been abused sexually by their caregivers. The emotional and psychological toll not only on the victims—both human and animal—but on the investigators is significant. One of our officers who viewed hours of videos in order to identify a perpetrator by his genitalia so that a conviction could be obtained is haunted by those images to this day.
As the lead investigator on two large cockfighting files, I can speak personally to the inadequacies of the legislation and the lack of knowledge in traditional policing agencies with respect to these types of investigations. In January 1998, police attending a random call literally stumbled across a cockfight in progress. Thirty-nine individuals were detained, searched and released. The B.C. SPCA was called because animals were involved. B.C. SPCA special constables attended, armed with a search warrant, and conducted a search of the premises, uncovering caches of cocaine and steroids used in the murky world of cockfighting.
Police officers were asked if during their search they found any evidence of betting, or confiscated any monies. We were told that they were not aware that they should be looking for money. Seventy-two fighting cocks and substantial fighting paraphernalia were seized. Thirty-nine individuals were charged. One individual was convicted and received a fine of $750.
ln February 2008, following a year-long joint investigation with the integrated gaming enforcement team, the B.C. SPCA, assisted by police and municipal bylaw enforcement, executed search warrants on three properties in Surrey, British Columbia. B.C. SPCA officers were on the largest property for 24 hours, searching and documenting the site. Birds were tethered to barrels. Several were found to have injuries consistent with fighting—gashes, infected wounds and missing eyes. Significant cockfighting paraphernalia, including metal spurs, trophies, scorecards and weigh scales were found. As well, 1,270 cocks were seized and euthanized using physical manipulation methods. Cockfighting pits were found in multiple locations on two of the sites. Charges were presented to the Crown against three individuals, one of whom was convicted.
B.C. SPCA special provincial constables have executed multiple warrants on a number of properties where cocks continue to be kept, bred and are believed to be used for cockfighting purposes. However, their hands are tied, because the bad guys know that as long as cockfighting pits are not on their property, there is little we can do. Warrants were executed on properties, both rural and urban, where large numbers of dogs historically used in fighting were housed. Paraphernalia regularly used in both lawful and unlawful events were found, resulting in a lack of substantial evidence to pursue to legal proceedings.
The current language in paragraph 445.1(1)(b) severely limits the ability for law enforcement to pursue charges, as access to an animal fight is difficult at best. Broadening the language to include “the training, transporting or breeding of animals or birds” gives those animals at risk greater protection. My colleagues in other jurisdictions can speak to their experiences in conducting dogfighting investigations involving organized crime and the difficulties in pursuing justice. The B.C. SPCA operates 36 branches where animals are brought into care through various means. It is not unheard of to receive dogs that have highly suspicious injuries believed to have occurred as a result of underground dogfighting.
ln summary, I ask you to give serious consideration to the amendments as proposed in order that I, my colleagues, and all law enforcement professionals are given the ability to effectively investigate and enforce animal offence provisions and help to make lives a bit better for the animals we have chosen to protect.
Thank you.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much. It is much appreciated.
We'll now move to Mr. Reichert.
9:50 a.m.
West Coast Campaign Officer, Animal Protection Party of Canada
Thank you so much.
First of all, I want to thank the committee for this whole process.
In particular, I want to thank Mr. Rankin, the member for Victoria and my MP—he is absent today but he has been here—for all his good work in the community and his support for various issues I've brought forward related to animals. He's been very helpful with that.
I also want to thank Mr. Erskine-Smith, the member for Beaches—East York—he's not here now either—for his work on bringing animal issues forward into government. I think he's made a tremendous impact here.
My name is Jordan Reichert. I'm the West Coast Campaign Officer for the Animal Protection Party of Canada. The Animal Protection Party of Canada is North America's first political party for animals to represent their interests and those of the environment. It was established in 2005—before, one could say, bringing animals into politics was cool, perhaps. We hold all political parties accountable for their policy in regard to protecting animals and the impact of their policy on the environment and society as well.
To start, I want to address the question of animal sentience, which underlies the purpose of why we are gathered here to consider the treatment of animals under the law. While animals may still be defined as property under the 1892 statute in the Criminal Code, they are without question sentient. According to the declaration on consciousness that was made in July 2012, scientists, in the presence of the late Stephen Hawking, wrote the following:
Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors.
In recognition of the above, it is necessary to approach Bill C-84 from the perspective that we are enhancing protections for vulnerable individuals who may not be treated as equals under the law but are nonetheless affected equally by its inadequacies to protect their safety. Bill C-84 addresses specific instances of cruel acts against animals—namely, bestiality and animal fighting—without addressing the broader implications of animals' continued definition as property. I want to acknowledge this shortcoming while not dwelling on it, and move on to the specific acts addressed in the bill.
The amendments to the Criminal Code proposed in Bill C-84 address long-standing holes in the law that have allowed for the sexual abuse, exploitation and suffering of animals across Canada. While these issues in particular may not be as prolific or garner as much attention as other animal cruelty issues, they are no less important to the animals who suffer them.
As is often referenced as the catalyst for Bill C-84 in regard to bestiality, the Supreme Court case of the Queen v. D.L.W. narrowly defined bestiality as “penetration between a human and an animal”, drawn from the original term “buggery”. This allowed an act of unquestionable sexual harm to an animal and a young person to be excused. In the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, this has had further chilling effects on prosecutors' already limited abilities to address animal cruelty cases. With there being a strong correlation between the abuse of animals and the abuse of vulnerable people when they are present, this amendment will benefit individuals, animal and human alike.
My concern about the wording of Bill C-84 is that it does not go far enough to address the contemporary systematic aspects of bestiality rings. Bestiality is not only a private act but also a social one, with online forums and an existing trade in images, video and the arranging of meetings to sexually abuse animals. For example, unlike child pornography, no provisions are made in the wording of the law against bestiality, old or amended, that address the creation of materials and the promotion or dissemination of sexualized content of animals.
In Washington state, laws around bestiality acknowledge this broader narrative behind the act. There, causing or aiding another person to engage in sexual activity is also prohibited, as is permitting it in your premises, observing it, promoting it and advertising it. In Canada, under the current law and proposed amendments, the proliferation of bestiality would still have avenues to spread unaddressed, online and otherwise.
Animal fighting is another illegal activity that does not get significant media attention due to its underground nature and ties to organized crime. The act of breeding, training and fighting animals causes considerable psychological and physiological damage to animals, or may lead to violent premature death.
There is also the theft and deaths of the animals associated with the training of dogs who fight in the arena, including dogs and cats who are used as bait during the training process.
Current wording in the Criminal Code fails to address substantial motivations and processes involved for people engaged in animal fighting. Animal fighting often involves financial investment in the animals being fought and profited off of, and that investment must be recognized as a key motivator for the people behind this brutal blood sport. Operations that breed and abuse animals for fighting may be run in an organized and semi-professional manner, and this needs to be addressed in the law. Furthermore, the current wording only addresses cockfighting pits, and not the more common contemporary design of “arenas” used for dogs. You've heard much about this.
Changes proposed in Bill C-84 will substantially address many of the shortcomings of the current reading of the law. Adding the wording “promotes, arranges” and “receives money for or takes part in” increases acknowledgement of the breadth of processes behind the organizing of animal fighting rings. Including “the training, transporting or breeding of animals or birds” is also an important acknowledgement that the arena is the end game and not the sum of animal fighting. While cockfighting still exists, the new wording that describes the less specific “arena” is essential to bring the law into the contemporary context of animal fighting.
However, Bill C-84's current amendments neglect to include the theft of animals for the purpose of training or fighting other animals. This would be an important inclusion, considering the prevalence of this activity related to animal fighting.
The Animal Protection Party of Canada is unequivocally opposed to the use of animals for sexual gratification and fighting. Animals have been recognized by the scientific community as sentient beings who are feeling and intelligent, who have their own interests and who are expressive of their needs and desires.
The act of bestiality is exploitative of the position of power a human has over a vulnerable animal and is not something the animal can be understood to consent to freely. Animal fighting may be more brutal, merciless and violent, but again it stems from the same power imbalance that places a vulnerable animal at the mercy of someone who has admonished themselves of their duty to provide safety and security for the welfare of animals.
Due to the clandestine nature of bestiality and animal fighting, it is unclear how prolific each may be in Canada. However, there is evidence that such acts are not completely uncommon.
What I regret to tell you is that the case law does not reflect even a faction of the number of cases that are submitted to animal welfare agencies by the public who witness them, let alone the number that are never reported. Amendments to Bill C-84 will hopefully help to prosecute these crimes and empower the public to report them but also help improve the status of animals within the law.
With over 50% of Canadian households having pets as our friends and family, animals deserve better than to be relegated to the property section of the Criminal Code. Bill C-84 will not address this broader issue of animals as property, but it will address some of the most egregious abuses of our relationships with them.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you today.
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much to both witnesses.
We will now go to questions.
Mr. Barrett.
10 a.m.
Michael Barrett Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to both of the witnesses for joining us today.
It's been a theme in hearing testimony that it's clandestine in nature. Obviously, people keep these activities secret because they're heinous—to put it bluntly. Hearing descriptions of animal fighting, of child abuse involving animals and of bestiality is shocking.
I think that makes it hard to address as a society, because people don't know about it. We don't want to talk about it, because even at the highest level it's awful.
For both bestiality and animal fighting, do you see a need for, or would you support, the government undertaking an awareness campaign on both subjects? That has been undertaken in recent years on things like online exploitation of children, but it would be specifically with these two issues of animal fighting and bestiality.
10 a.m.
West Coast Campaign Officer, Animal Protection Party of Canada
When I look at the current law and at the amendments that are proposed, there's certainly a degree of understanding in how animal fighting is conceptualized as a more systematic activity involving criminal behaviour. However, when it comes to bestiality, we seem to be sort of closing ourselves off. Perhaps it's due to the sexual nature of the activity, whereas we can relate more to dogfighting or other types of animal fighting as a sport, which is more common in our society.
When we actually look at bestiality, we see the proliferation of bestiality rings. People organize gatherings of bestiality. People trade videos and imagery of animals with sexualized content. There's a lack of acknowledgement that there's a broader social issue taking place here and that it has a systematic nature to it as well.
I very much agree that we need to examine—without hindering the movement forward of the bill—specifically the bestiality aspect to address these larger social concerns and the effect that they have on society.
10 a.m.
Senior Manager, Cruelty Investigations, BC SPCA
I would agree to some extent.
Certainly, the idea of having an awareness campaign would be of significant assistance, but only in the event that we have the ability to enforce the legislation. As the legislation is currently written, it is extremely difficult for us to do anything when we deal with some of the egregious offences that we're witness to.
I would agree that an awareness campaign is something that I can certainly support. Again, I think that what is most important for us is to ensure that any awareness campaign also includes the fact that there is legislation that is available, which is, one, enforceable and, two, realistic.
10:05 a.m.
West Coast Campaign Officer, Animal Protection Party of Canada
I just want to comment on the issue of awareness in our society of these issues. Mr. Eccles mentioned it earlier, and I think it came up recently in the Ontario Superior Court ruling that addressed the OSPCA and the lack of accountability and transparency in that organization. I think that goes for all of these charities that are trying to enforce animal cruelty laws across the country in their respective provinces, etc.
It's extremely difficult to get access to any of this information. They may talk about it here or at particular committees or conferences, but if I wanted to do an FOI request and actually find out the prevalence of calls that they receive on this particular issue, I could not obtain that sort of information. I could not do a report on it. I could not get that information out to the media to establish its prevalence. I think ongoing concerns are the accountability and transparency of who is collecting all of the data and information, and how it can be further disseminated back to the public.
10:05 a.m.
Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC
Mr. Eccles, do you think that the change to “an arena for animal fighting” is a sufficient change in wording—from it strictly being a cockpit—for enforcement purposes?
10:05 a.m.
Senior Manager, Cruelty Investigations, BC SPCA
Certainly, because as it's written now, we're only dealing with cockfighting. In my personal experience, it has been cockfighting, so it has been helpful.
However, for my colleagues in other jurisdictions that are dealing with dogfighting, the difficulty becomes one of gathering evidence that supports the fact that dogfighting is occurring. What we often hear is, “It was two dogs playing, and we were just watching what was going on.”
We know that, when we're searching for evidence, we actually have set information that we're looking for. Whether that be anything from panels that are two feet by four feet or four feet by eight feet to the utilization of a number of doors that may be in a back room that can be set up to develop a pit or a ring, that is what we're looking for. It's anything that we can use with respect to an arena. Then we can start looking for the things that would generally be found when we're looking for an arena. We would be looking for things like scratch marks on the floor, carpeting, the panels that would set up the outside walls, and whether or not there are any stands.
In the cockpit that I had investigated in 1988, we found that it was definitely an arena environment. There was a pit, and all around the outside were areas where people could stand and bet on the outcomes of the fights.
Absolutely, I would support that we need to have the arena in there.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you both very much for joining us today.
I want to talk a bit about the overlapping jurisdiction between the federal criminal law power and provincial animal protection acts and get a sense from you, in looking at this bill, of how those overlapping jurisdictions work on the ground.
When people are charged with offences involving cruelty to animals, is it often that they're charged both criminally, and for example, by an animal protection act in one of the provinces? How do you see that interplay working with the changes in this bill?
I would ask Mr. Eccles to start.
10:05 a.m.
Senior Manager, Cruelty Investigations, BC SPCA
As I indicated earlier in my statement, we enforce not only the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which is provincial legislation or referred to as a general application act, and then the Criminal Code, which is a federal statute.
For us, oftentimes we will look at both. Certainly the advantage to going with a Criminal Code offence is that those offences provide for criminal sentencing and criminal records; whereas, laws of general application that are enforced by provincial legislation are essentially laws of summary conviction and make it much more difficult for us to be able to share that information with our counterparts.
There has been an initiative by Humane Canada with respect to NCPAC and the development of a database on case law that has been particularly helpful. However, in most cases, we would prefer to be able to go criminal. Certainly, in cases that are of lesser significance or importance—and not that any of them are—the Crown does have the ability to lessen that offence to a provincial statute if necessary.
10:10 a.m.
West Coast Campaign Officer, Animal Protection Party of Canada
I agree with my colleague, Mr. Eccles. I think that the current form of going about prosecution certainly falls to wherever the advantage lies. The provincial Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act in B.C., where I'm from and usually see this taking place, is often pursued in favour....
A major obstacle to this—and Mr. Eccles spoke to this briefly as well—is how a charity effectively goes about enforcing the laws as we change them. If we make them stronger, that's wonderful, and if we expand them, that's wonderful, but we depend on donations to basically protect animals.
I think that's something that needs to be addressed for us to move forward with this. We can't just talk about it at the level of prosecution. We have to talk about it at the level of enforcement lower down as well.