Moved second reading of Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting).

She said: Honourable colleagues, I rise today as sponsor of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting), which proposes amendments to strengthen protections against bestiality and animal fighting. This is the first bill I have sponsored. I chose it because of its importance to me as an individual and as an Indigenous woman. I’m deeply honoured to be speaking on behalf of my animal relations.

Before I begin talking about this bill, I want to briefly share my reasons for choosing this bill today.

In thinking about this, I asked myself the question: “What is the difference between us as humans and not as animals?” And I thought how we as humans have often made this distinction in many different ways. I quickly became surprised by how so many options seemed available to me in claiming this difference.

For example, I could, as others have, claim our difference lies in the belief that we can reason, while animals cannot. Or perhaps I could claim the difference lies in the fact that we can own property while they cannot, or that we have compassion and moral agency, and they do not. That list can go on and on.

In considering my many options, I also realized how a list much like this was similarly used to separate the Indigenous person from the rest of society in much the same way that colonization subjected Indigenous people to harsh treatment through someone else’s laws because we were viewed as non‑human, too close to nature and thus lacking civilized qualities.

Despite our stern attempts to claim distinction from one another, an interdependency remains. Just as the idea that there exists something that is civilized depends on the idea that there exists something savage or uncivilized, knowing what is human depends on knowing what is animal.

Even in our act of separating ourselves, we demonstrate an interdependency on the other. Indeed, no matter how much we try, we are dependent on all of our relations in every way.

To be clear, an Indigenous view incorporates and acknowledges this interdependency or interconnectedness. We are not independent units but, instead, we are the sum of all of our relations and our individual well-being is dependent on our relations. This is something I am very familiar with since I have spent my lifetime studying how an individual’s physiological health is determined by the health of their connection to their culture and family.

I have also heard my colleagues in this place attest to environmental issues, stressing how the sustainability of our species and the planet rests in acknowledging the ways in which we are dependent and interdependent while maintaining wise and healthy relations with our natural resources.

The sum of this is that within these discussions we have come to understand that we must act to protect and nourish our relations with the natural world if we are to nourish ourselves. But the question remains: What beings should be considered the subjects of all our relations and of our protections?

The medicine wheel guides us and is clear that interdependency exists not just between us two-legged humans but that it extends out to all of the other four directions to encapsulate the four-legged, the gilled and the winged.

Therefore, if we are to acknowledge and honour all of our relations, as well as the interdependency we share, as senators we must act to nourish and protect our relations with all beings, including those animals who, like the Indigenous peoples before them, are left legally marginalized and therefore vulnerable to increased violence. That is something this bill seeks to rectify.

This bill has received broad support from parliamentarians and stakeholders and would bring about important changes to the Criminal Code by closing two legislative gaps. These changes will better reflect the beliefs held by the large majority of Canadians who find abhorrent the abuse of animals in all of its forms.

In what follows, honourable senators, I explain how we can amend certain legislative gaps with respect to bestiality and animal fighting and show how Bill C-84 is a step toward greater justice for animals, how it offers more protections for children, other vulnerable persons and reflects our commonly held values.

I would especially like to highlight the efforts of my parliamentary colleagues, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and Michelle Rempel, who are tireless advocates for animal welfare and persevered in moving this bill through the other place.

I would also like to thank the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and all of the witnesses and stakeholders who appeared before it for their thorough examination.

This work resulted in amendments to the bill which I believe have further strengthened it and for which the government has signalled its support as well.

Canadians have also shown support through online petitions asking to quickly move this through and pass it into law.

The offence of bestiality was first defined in the Criminal Code in 1892. It has never been defined by Canadian statute, but it finds its origins in ancient British law. It is now time to modernize and add protections for the most vulnerable.

Currently, the Criminal Code contains three bestiality offences: the first is the simpliciter, or simple, offence of committing bestiality, the second is the offence of compelling another person to commit bestiality and the third is the offence of committing bestiality in the presence of a person under 16 years or inciting them to commit bestiality.

Bill C-84 does not change the nature of the maximum penalties of these offences, which range, on indictment, from 10 to 14 years in jail.

The first reform that Bill C-84 proposes is to add a definition of bestiality to section 160 of the Criminal Code, the provision that sets out the three bestiality offences already described.

Bill C-84 proposes to broaden the definition of bestiality to include:

. . . any contact, for a sexual purpose, with an animal.

This definition responds to the 2016 Supreme Court of Canada decision of R v D.L.W.. This is a deeply disturbing case of animal and child abuse.

Without elaborating, the case involved an accused who was convicted of numerous sexual offences against his two stepdaughters that had been committed over the course of 10 years, including bestiality against a dog. In considering the meaning of bestiality, the court examined the historical interpretation at common law to interpret what it meant and held that the common law meaning of bestiality was limited to include only penetrative sexual acts with an animal. The court stated that the expansion of this definition falls squarely within the purview of Parliament, not the courts, and the accused in the D.L.W. case was acquitted on the charges of bestiality.

What this essentially does is risks normalizing depraved sexual behaviour. It jeopardizes animal welfare in Canada and ultimately fails to properly address the sexual exploitation of vulnerable members of society, such as children and animals. It is therefore critical that this legislative gap be remedied through a definition of what bestiality is by defining the term “bestiality” to mean any contact for a sexual purpose between a person and an animal.

The phrase “for a sexual purpose,” which is used in several other provisions in the Criminal Code, such as child pornography, Internet luring and making sexually explicit material available to a child, is clearly understood by the courts to mean proof that the act, viewed objectively, was committed for the sexual gratification of the accused. It is expected that the courts will follow this approach when applying the definition to the bestiality offences.

As mentioned, when this bill was studied in the other place, amendments were passed to better achieve its objectives. Two of those amendments are related to bestiality and are based, in part, on testimony and evidence provided by witnesses at committee.

The first amendment would permit animal prohibition orders and restitution orders to be made by a court when a person is convicted of a bestiality offence. A prohibition order would mean that a person convicted of bestiality would be prohibited from possessing, having control over or residing with an animal for any period up to a lifetime ban.

Such orders are already available in section 447.1 of the Criminal Code for animal cruelty offences. It makes sense that the same type of authority be made available for the bestiality offences. Individuals convicted of any form of bestiality should not be allowed to own, have control over or have immediate contact with any animal as they have shown themselves to be serious animal abusers.

It should be noted that it was felt more appropriate to specify this power in section 160, rather than adding the bestiality offences to the animal cruelty prohibition order in section 447.1. This is to ensure that when bestiality offences are prosecuted, the availability of these orders would be more obvious to the prosecutor and the court than if they were located in another part of the Criminal Code.

The ability to make a restitution order is also an important aspect of this amendment to Bill C-84. When an animal is abused, there are often significant costs associated with its medical care, rehabilitation and general care. These costs should be borne by the person who is responsible for the injury to the animal and not by the good people and organizations who rescue and care for the animal during its recovery. In addition, such measures encourage additional accountability by the offender for his or her actions, and I strongly support these changes.

The second amendment would ensure that those who are convicted of engaging in a sexual act with an animal, the bestiality simpliciter offence, must comply with the requirements of the National Sex Offender Registry. Compelling the commission of bestiality and bestiality in the presence of a child were included in the original enactment of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, and this change would now capture all bestiality offences.

Although the bestiality simpliciter offence does not involve an offence against an individual human as the other designated offences do, it is still considered to be a sexual offence. This is clear by Bill C-84’s proposed definition of bestiality: “. . . any contact, for a sexual purpose, with an animal.”

In supporting the amendment, the Justice Committee referenced evidence presented by witnesses during examination of Bill C-84 that during such conditions these animals experienced great levels of pain and suffering. As individuals and as a society, we develop compassion and show signs of maturity when we begin to listen to the voices of the voiceless. Science increasingly demonstrates the rich emotional life of animals. Scientists call it sentience, and the human heart easily feels the connection when it takes the time to listen.

Bill C-84 also proposes to modernize the law surrounding animal fighting, and I believe the proposed changes are equally important and necessary.

The proposed amendments in the bill address animal fighting in two ways. First, they would increase the list of prohibited activities that support the animal-fighting industry. These changes are set out in clause 2 of the bill and would amend the animal-fighting offence at paragraph 445.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. It would do this by adding additional act elements which would be prohibited, including promoting, arranging or receiving money for animal fighting. This would both expand the scope of the offence and make it easier to prosecute it by clearly setting out the prohibited acts, thereby encouraging more prosecutions under the Criminal Code.

The second proposed amendment would expand the prohibition against keeping a cockpit to ensure that the provision applies to keeping an arena for the fighting of any animal. This amendment is particularly important considering that dog fighting is the main form of animal fighting.

Dog fighting is a very real and serious problem in Canada. Dr. Alice Crook, Adjunct Professor at the Atlantic Veterinary College, explains how the pain and suffering dogs experience in these fights is both physical and emotional. A dog can experience a range of emotions that include 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.

Fights end when one animal either dies, is cowed or is seriously injured. In a fight or in training for a fight, which could include a bait animal, a witness would see a dog exhibit behaviour such as calls of distress, attempts to retreat or escape, defensive behaviour, appeasement gestures, cowering and trembling.

Honourable senators, you may wonder what is meant by a bait animal. These can be smaller dogs, usually for training purposes, but cats, rabbits and kittens are also used.

These are horrendous facts, and anyone hearing about them is undoubtedly outraged. Bill C-84 seeks to address these situations, and I am strongly in support for taking action to combat this serious issue.

A third amendment dealing with animal fighting was passed by the Justice Committee. It proposes to repeal subsection 447(3) of the Criminal Code. This provision provides that in the offence of keeping a cockpit, the birds found in the cockpit must be destroyed. The provision is a historical leftover and was enacted because birds are often injured or trained to be aggressive and are unable to be held with other birds. However, this no longer accords with modern responses to abused animals, and the removal of this section is proposed.

I do not believe that any individual, be it human or animal, is inherently violent. What is worse, in my mind, is that since they are taken away from their families and conditioned to live in fear, so to fear other people and other dogs, in this way their fear response is harnessed and manipulated. This is then used to advance and feed a despicable form of entertainment.

If the reason for the amendments is to punish those who cruelly subject animals to a life of fear and violence, I truly believe that extra care must be taken to rehabilitate and heal these animals. We must remember that these individuals are the victims of these crimes, and, as such, we must ensure that they are not simply euthanized and that advocates assess their needs on a case-by-case basis for their safe and proper rehabilitation.

The links between child abuse and animal abuse are well-founded, and I would like to add that practices such as dogs fighting are often linked to other forms of crime. Although I don’t believe there are academic studies linking dog fighting and organized crime in Canada, law enforcement officers have reported finding firearms and drugs at dog fighting locations, and this concern has been echoed in the other place as being a major and important consideration for protecting animals.

Honourable senators, Bill C-84 is a very important piece of legislation that proposes amendments that would offer much greater protections to children, to vulnerable persons and animals. Many people applaud this bill because it links acts of animal cruelty to social ills such as child abuse, gambling and organized crime, but let’s not forget that animals are part of our society, too, and that we have lived with them since time immemorial. We are interconnected and interdependent in every way.

Bill C-84 is a modest step in ensuring more protections of these sentient beings, our fellow creatures and relations, and a modest improvement in modernizing Canada’s archaic animal welfare laws.

Let’s move this to committee as soon as possible. This is a historical opportunity to make a difference to the voiceless and the vulnerable.

Thank you. Meegwetch.