Bill C-84 · 42th Parliament · Justin Trudeau
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 18, 2018
- Debated in principleOct. 29, 2018
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 8, 2019
- Passed the second chamberJune 18, 2019
- Became lawJune 20, 2019
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Justin TrudeauPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
52% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (409 words introduced, 532 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent broadened
The bill kept its core changes defining bestiality and widening the animal fighting offences. It added new court powers for ownership bans and cost orders plus a repeal and a registry amendment.
- New court orders on animal ownership and costs were inserted after the main offences.
After: “Order of prohibition or restitution (4) The court may, in addition to any other sentence that it may impose under any of subsections (1) to (3), (a) make an order prohibiting the accused from owning , having the custody or control of or residing in the same premises as an animal during any period that the court considers appropriate but, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a minimum of five years;”
- Subsection 447(3) was repealed in addition to replacing 447(1).
After: “(2) Subsection 447(3) of the Act is repealed.”
- Bestiality was added to the list of designated offences.
After: “(vi.01) subsection 160(1) (bestiality),”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes concrete lists of prohibited acts and a fixed five-year minimum with open-ended judicial discretion over prohibition length and cost orders. Several key phrases invite argument over purpose, appropriateness and ascertainability rather than settling coverage on first reading.
Open to argument
“during any period that the court considers appropriate”
Subjective judicial standard replaces any fixed or objective duration test.“with any modifications that the circumstances require”
Broad discretion to alter statutory rules without defined limits.“for a sexual purpose”
Purpose-based test that turns on inferred mental state rather than observable conduct.“if the costs are readily ascertainable”
Undefined threshold that invites disputes over what counts as readily ascertainable.
Clear-cut
“for a minimum of five years”
Numeric floor removes discretion on repeat offences.“bestiality means any contact, for a sexual purpose, with an animal”
Supplies an explicit definition where none existed.“promoting, arranging, receiving money for or taking part in”
Enumerates specific actions that expand the offence without relying on general language.
Discretion. No powers are delegated to ministers or regulations; all remaining discretion rests with sentencing courts.
Challenging the law itself. The open-ended phrases on purpose and appropriateness could support a s. 7 Charter vagueness or overbreadth claim.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can readily dispute whether conduct met the 'sexual purpose' or 'readily ascertainable' tests, though the listed acts themselves are harder to contest.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.