Why governments are skittish when it comes to animal welfare

The federal government’s decision to reform Canada’s bestiality law is a victory for common sense.

It is also a victory, albeit a carefully circumscribed one, for animals.

The reform itself is simple and long overdue. Bestiality has always been illegal in Canada. But because the term was never defined, the courts could not agree on what constituted this crime.

That confusion came to a head in 2015 when the Supreme Court heard the case of a British Columbia man who forced the family dog to lick peanut butter from his stepdaughter’s crotch.

The man had been convicted on 12 counts of sexual molestation. But the top court upheld his acquittal on the bestiality charge, finding in a 6-to-1 decision that, unless otherwise specified, this particular crime required penetration.

In a broad hint to lawmakers, the majority noted that Parliament could broaden the definition of bestiality if it wished.

And at one level, that’s exactly what the government’s new Bill C-84 does. Tabled on Thursday, the bill defines bestiality as “any contact, for a sexual purpose, with an animal.”

It also broadens the existing ban against cockfighting to include all animals.

Both of these measures are long overdue. But the fact that it has taken so long to do something so obvious says much about the fraught politics of animal welfare.

Simply put, politicians — including the governing Liberals — are terrified of running afoul of the animal-use industry.

Those who profit from using animals, including scientific researchers, hunters and ranchers are suspicious of any moves to further animal welfare. They fear that such moves will constrain their use of animals and thus raise their costs.

The Liberals discovered the strength of this industry in 1999 when Jean Chrétien’s government tried to pass a motherhood bill to strengthen the penalties for animal cruelty. That attempt ran into a buzz saw of opposition and was eventually scrapped.

Subsequent attempts by Liberal backbenchers to revive some form of the 1999 animal cruelty bill failed spectacularly.

Even in the no-brainer case of bestiality, Trudeau’s Liberal government remained extraordinarily cautious.

It waited until Conservative MP Michelle Rempel introduced a private member’s bill to broaden the definition of bestiality. Then it ran the idea past all of the important animal-use lobby groups to make sure that, in the words of a government press release, Bill C-84 would “not interfere with legitimate and traditional farming, hunting and trapping practices including Indigenous harvesting rights.”

The government’s efforts were helped by Humane Canada, a body representing humane societies across the country. It managed to get important producer groups, such as the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, onside with the idea of toughening bestiality laws.

Overall, the Liberals sold their bill as an effort to protect children.

At one level, it is pathetic that this much effort was required to accomplish something so limited. But there is a wrinkle in the bestiality saga that may cheer up those fighting for animals.

In the 2015 Supreme Court case, an animal welfare group called Animal Justice received permission to intervene. Its arguments — that bestiality is an affront to animals — did not convince the majority.

But they did have some traction with dissenting Justice Rosalie Abella. She noted that bestiality, in whatever form, exploits animals as well as humans and that such exploitation is contrary to statute law.

Abella’s dissent was not exactly a clarion call for animal rights. But in the context of bestiality, it did raise the question. That the government is responding to the court at all in this instance keeps that question alive.