Bill C-35 (Historical)

Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to better protect law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals and to ensure that offenders who harm those animals or assault peace officers are held fully accountable.

Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law)

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here once again in the House of Commons to speak to a very important initiative that pertains directly to our four-legged friends, animals that can be described as in service of our country and in service of our community.

Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, is also known as Quanto's law. It is named after Quanto, who was a five-year-old German shepherd Edmonton police dog who was fatally stabbed October 7, 2013, sadly, while assisting the police in apprehending a suspect. Quanto and his handler, Constable Matt Williamson, were in pursuit of a suspect in a stolen vehicle. When the vehicle became disabled at a gas station, the driver jumped out and fled. Constable Williamson ordered the suspect to stop. When the suspect refused to do so, the officer deployed Quanto, his partner, his dog. Constable Williamson, then in pursuit, eventually witnessed what took place. Quanto did catch the suspect who was fleeing, but in the midst of holding him while waiting for Constable Williamson to arrive, Quanto was stabbed with a knife repeatedly. Medical treatment was applied, but despite efforts to save Quanto, he succumbed to his injuries.

Sadly, this particular incident is not an isolated incident. This has happened in other cases across this country. It speaks to the need to do more when it comes to protecting service animals. It speaks to the recognition of the vulnerability of these animals in supporting law enforcement, our border services, and other law enforcement services.

At the outset, I want to pay tribute to the member for Richmond Hill, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who brought this initiative forward. However, because of a procedural requirement that when he became a parliamentary secretary he could no longer pursue this initiative, the government has picked it up and taken it forward. It was also referenced in the Speech from the Throne.

The proposed amendment to the Criminal Code is to recognize the daily risks taken by police officers and their service animals. They work very much in unison.

I note that this bill defines each of the terms. The proposed amendments would create a new specific offence prohibiting the killing or injuring of a law enforcement animal, service animal, or military animal. I will come back to those definitions.

A law enforcement animal is defined as a dog or a horse that is trained to aid a law enforcement officer in carrying out the officer's duties.

A military animal is defined as an animal that is trained to aid members of the Canadian Forces in carrying out members' duties. This would include the very critical task that we saw in recent years in Afghanistan with bomb disposal units. Dogs, as we all know, are gifted with very sensitive olfactory systems. That is, they are able to smell things that other animals and humans cannot. Despite great advances in technology around bomb disposal, the dog is still the very best indicator in many cases of where these IEDs, the landmines, are located. However, we can imagine the great risk they are under. We can also imagine how incensed the Taliban is when its random attempts to kill and maim people are foiled by the dogs. This makes these dogs a target just as, in a criminal sense, dogs who apprehend those who may flee justice or those who may be involved in the drug trade are specifically made targets.

Therefore, I come back to the purpose of the bill, which is to recognize both the harm and the danger to which they are exposed but also to elevate criminal sanctions to protect them and send a signal to recognize their specific vulnerability.

A service animal is defined as an animal that is required by a person with a disability for assistance and, importantly, is certified in writing as having been trained by a professional service animal institution to assist a person with a disability. Again, I would suggest that the intent of the bill is to elevate the importance of what these animals do, the service they provide, and the potential vulnerability that is present in their life because of their service.

While the bill bears the name of Quanto, that name really represents a much larger body of animals. Quanto, incidentally, was recently elected into the Purina Animal Hall of Fame, I am told, as special recognition of his service to country.

The Criminal Code has contained offences relating to treatment of animals since 1892, and the current set of offences has existed since 1953. The penalties in the existing law were in fact increased by this government in 2008. The offence of killing, maiming, wounding, poisoning, or injuring an animal that is kept for a lawful purpose is found in section 445 of the Criminal Code, and this particular section was used, in fact, to prosecute Quanto's killer.

The maximum sentence that may be imposed where there is a hybrid offence and it is prosecuted as an indictable offence is up to five years, and the law provides that the court may, in addition to any other sentence, on application of the Attorney General or on its own motion, order that the accused pay the reasonable costs incurred in respect of an animal as a result of the commission of the offence. This gets at the fact that the training and purchase of these animals, because they provide such special service, is significant.

I have a very good friend, Duane Rutledge, who is a dog handler with the New Glasgow Regional Police Service back in my home constituency. He has, over the years, trained and worked with three separate dogs. Most of these dogs are German shepherds, brought in either from the Czech Republic or from Germany. These animals can cost thousands of dollars, and when one factors in the training that goes into preparing these animals for service, the cost goes even higher. Estimates, in some cases, put a single service animal, by the time it reaches maturity, at $60,000; so there is cost to be incurred as well. Not to diminish the loss and the human side in injury to an animal, the financial costs associated with an animal being taken out of service, or worse yet, killed, are significant.

Further, paragraph 738(1)(a) of the Criminal Code authorizes the court to order the offender to pay the costs associated with training a new animal as restitution for the loss of an animal where the amount is readily ascertainable.

The person who killed Quanto, for example, was sentenced to a total of 26 months imprisonment on various charges arising out of the events of October 7, which I spoke of earlier. Eighteen months was specifically designated for the killing of Quanto. He was also banned from owning a pet for 25 years.

Quanto's killing was only the most recent instance in which a police service animal was killed in the course of a police operation. Another high-profile incident involved the death of an eight-year-old horse.

The horse, Brigadier, was a Toronto Police Service horse killed in the line of duty in 2006. In that case, a driver in a fit of rage, while waiting in line at a drive-through ATM, made a U-turn and barrelled into the horse and his mounted officer. Both of Brigadier's front legs were broken, the left one so badly that he could never have recovered. The horse had to be put down.

We have another example in which a service animal, in this case a horse, was injured severely. The person drove a car into the animal, into the police horse, and was subsequently convicted. There were charges for dangerous driving causing bodily harm to Brigadier's mounted officer.

Members of this House would also be aware of the many ways that law enforcement dogs and horses can assist handlers in protecting the public.

A police dog is trained specifically to assist police and other law enforcement personnel in their work, such as searching for drugs, explosives, people who are lost in the woods, and evidence such as weapons, and protecting their handlers. Law enforcement canine units, like Quanto's unit in Edmonton, are common components of municipal police, as well as provincial police forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

We are all very aware of the Musical Ride and the service it represents, as well as the entertainment factor. It is a source of pride for both the RCMP and all Canadians.

In 1995 in Montreal, after 23 years, a new version of the Montreal police canine unit was established.

Today, this canine unit is composed of 11 police officers and 10 operational dogs. The canine unit supports Montreal police officers in their investigations and daily activities. It is also called upon to work in certain operations where its specialties are required. For example, the unit will cooperate with other police forces that do not have canine units.

The canine unit also works during major events. It is also called upon to participate in media, community and cultural events at schools and community meetings or on television shows to promote the canine unit, the police service and the City of Montreal. The dogs of the Montreal police canine unit each specialize in specific types of work.

We know that some dogs are trained for a very specific purpose with respect to the detection of narcotics. Other dogs have specialized skills in searching buildings and in explosives detection. Some dogs have specialized training that takes years to perfect.

On the international front, looking outside our borders, a number of American states, such as Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, and others, have enacted special laws making the intentional injuring or killing of a police dog a felony offence, subjecting the perpetrator to harsher penalties than those that exist in statutes embodied in local animal cruelty laws. Just as the assault on a police officer may currently result in harsher penalties, we believe there should be an elevated sentence to be meted out when a police animal is injured or killed.

In terms of law enforcement horses, as I mentioned, after special training, law enforcement horses may be employed for specialized duties, ranging from patrolling a park or wilderness area, where police cars would be impractical or noisy, to riot duty. Nothing garners attention in a large crowd where a riot might be erupting like a 1500-pound police horse coming into that area. It tends to garner attention. It tends to have a calming effect on the nerves for many, upon seeing that police horse arrive.

Police horses serve to send a very strong message when attempting to disperse crowds, through their larger size. Police horses provide the officers who ride them with added visibility and an added capacity to see what is happening in what is sometimes a very scattered and chaotic situation. They give riders the ability to observe a much wider area and allow police officers in that area to garner the attention they need and deserve. The service horses help, therefore, to deter crime. They help people find officers when they need them.

The bill would go further and proposes to extend specific protection, not only for law enforcement animals but also for trained service animals and military animals. Service animals perform tasks to help their disabled human masters live independent lives.

Most service animals are dogs, such as seeing eye dogs. However, other kinds of animals may also be trained to serve their masters, to serve individuals they are tasked to work with. The costs associated with training these new service animals is also significant.

I mentioned the Canadian Armed Forces and the variety of animals that are often contracted and used for those purposes. These animals assist Canadian Forces members by locating bombs. Again, I say for emphasis, what courageous work.

Like the men and women of the Canadian Forces who are tasked with this highly dangerous task, service animals have an enormous role to play in helping to detect IEDs, which are hidden and have a horrible impact, as we know, on human life. We have certainly seen the horrific aftermath and chaos that results when individuals step on IEDs. We have many service members in Canada now living with those ailments and ambulatory disabilities as a result.

Each of these service animals is required to have received specialized training to enable it to accomplish very specific tasks in support of its human handler.

It should also be noted that this offence would only apply where the animal was killed or injured in the line of duty. Animals that did not fall within the scope of this new offence would nevertheless be protected by existing animal cruelty provisions of the code.

As with existing sections under 445 of the code, the proposed offence would require the offender to have intended to kill or injure one of these animals. That mens rea, that intentional element, exists. In that way, accidental or negligent conduct would not be criminalized.

As with other provisions under section 445 of the code, the new offence would carry a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment on indictment, and 18 months or a fine of up to $10,000 on summary conviction.

It is important to note that the proposed amendments would also require courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence as sentencing objectives as they relate to this new offence. We must underline here that there would be a mandatory minimum penalty of six months' imprisonment where a law enforcement animal was killed in the line of duty and the offence was prosecuted by indictment.

The bill also includes a provision that would require the sentence imposed on a person convicted of an assault committed against a law enforcement officer to be served consecutively to any other sentence that might be imposed on the offender for the offence committed at the same time. We know that these police officers and military members work with the animals essentially as a unit, so an offence committed against the officer would be served consecutively to that which would pertain to the harming or the killing of the animal.

The murder of a police officer is classified as first degree murder automatically and is punishable by life in prison with a mandatory minimum period of parole eligibility of 25 years, as a reflection of that seriousness.

The Criminal Code specifically prohibits assaults committed against peace officers in the performance of their duties through a number of offences, including section 271, assault on a police officer; and section 270.01, assault with a weapon or assault causing bodily harm to a police officer. That recognition exists.

Regrettably, data from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics adult criminal court survey reveals that there are still too many assaults being committed on police officers across the country. There were, in fact, a total of 31,461 charges in the years 2011-12.

Again, we believe that there is consistency in bringing this matter forward. The Criminal Code was amended to require courts, when sentencing persons convicted of assaults on police officers, to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. This new amendment to the Criminal Code would be in that same vein.

I am sure that all would recognize that attacks not only put the lives and safety of individual officers at risk but also demonstrably put animals' lives at risk when violence and weapons are used. The attack undermines the justice system more broadly. Thus, recognizing the wilful killing or injuring of a law enforcement animal undermines the justice system more broadly.

The bill would require the sentence imposed on a person convicted of wilfully killing or injuring a law enforcement animal to be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender for the offence committed at the same time.

In closing, I want to indicate that I am looking forward to the justice committee's deliberations on this important bill and the study that will take place there. I urge that the bill be referred to committee without undue delay.

I believe that in this highly charged partisan atmosphere in which we sometimes work, this is a bill that should really receive broad support.

It is intended to improve safety and the ability of police and service animals to do their important work in service of Canadians, in service of law and order in this country, and I would encourage all members to support this bill.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is with regard to mandatory minimum sentences. It is a technical question. I know that the government likes to use wedge issues to impose such mandatory minimum sentences.

I would like to know if the government has in mind that mandatory minimum sentences could go against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would like to know if it has asked for judicial input on the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences in this bill.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

It is an important question. The Department of Justice has lawyers with the necessary experience and training to study each bill and each article of the Criminal Code to ensure charter compliance.

Indeed, we have looked at this bill. The section of the charter that would attach, potentially, would be section 12, where one would attempt to deem a period of mandatory incarceration of six months cruel and unusual punishment.

I would submit to my friend and the House that given the seriousness of killing a police animal in circumstances that very often involve endangerment of the public, with a weapon, for example, or by fleeing lawful custody, this is, as I said earlier, about denunciation and deterrence. This is about sending a message that killing or injuring a police animal in such circumstances is deemed serious enough that a mandatory minimum period of incarceration would be warranted and would reflect society's denunciation of that type of criminal behaviour.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the Minister of Justice. On the issue of consecutive and mandatory minimums, it certainly is showing some difficulties for the government. Other bills have been challenged in the courts. There seems to be a lack of trust by the government in judges' discretion. That is what these folks are trained for. They are trained to apply the law and to sometimes give more harsh or less harsh penalties, depending on the situation. Mandatory minimums certainly take that discretion away.

The minister said, in response to the last question, that this bill was examined for charter compliance. I expect that it was by Department of Justice lawyers or outside lawyers. I am not asking for it today, but will that evidence or charter compliance information be allowed to go before committee so the committee has the wisdom of that advice when looking at this particular bill?

I want to say that Liberals are supportive of the bill going to committee. It is an important bill, but it is also important that the legislation not be turned back by the courts.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Prince Edward Island for his question and also for his indication that the Liberal Party will be supporting this bill as it moves forward, the proviso being that it will be examined at committee. I would say to my friend that the intention, of course, in the examination of all legislation, is that the committee will have the opportunity to hear from officials if the committee wants justice officials to come before it, and I will certainly be appearing, to speak to the charter compliance, the constitutionality, so to speak, of the legislation.

However, let me be clear. It is not this government's intention to shy away from bringing forward legislation that we feel protects the public, and in this instance, protects animals that serve the public, because of the fear that somehow, somewhere, it may be challenged or that a judge may decide to strike it down. We are, after all, elected to this place and elected to government to act in the best interests of what we feel will serve and protect Canadians.

It is interesting to note that the Liberal Party, when in government, had no hesitation in bringing forward mandatory minimum penalties. In fact, many of the penalties found in the code today find their origins in the Liberal Party. There has been, as we have seen in a number of cases, a great deal of duplicity coming from the Liberal Party on this subject.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Justice for his opening speech in the debate on Bill C-35. I have to say that we must applaud the intentions of this bill, which are very worthwhile. That said, its application poses many problems. Over a period of nine years, this government has shown many times that it was wrong to attempt to push bills that pander to specific groups.

The Minister of Justice said at the start of his speech that he wanted to send a message. I would like him to tell me to which group of voters this message is being sent.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the message is for everyone, for every person who intends to injure an animal.

This is consistent with existing provisions in the Criminal Code that are intended to protect animals. More broadly, it is a recognition of the specific role played by police and service animals in society. For those who would intentionally harm those animals, there would be penalties attached. There would be accountability. That, frankly, has been lacking.

We have seen instances, which I have described, of police service dogs and animals who were harmed as a result of their service. Recognizing that in the criminal law, punishing those who commit such offences, would be general and specific deterrents. It would send a message to the offender and would be a general deterrent to those who would be similarly inclined.

This is not some kind of foreign concept or some kind of concept found only in Conservative circles. Having spent a number of years in the courts, general and specific deterrents are applied each and every day by judges across the land.

Would it prevent, in every case, an injury or the death of an animal? Of course not. However, I would suggest and submit that as a government, we have taken steps we think send clear messages on subjects of violence. We want to deter this. We want to protect those animals who put themselves on the line and are in harm's way, and we will continue to do that. Hopefully, we will actually garner some support, for a change, from the NDP on a subject as important as protecting police and service animals.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like the Minister of Justice, I understand very well the great service provided by animals in law enforcement. However, I am very surprised that the Minister of Justice is sharing his comments on this bill at this point in the parliamentary session. From the broad range of legislation available at this time and in future, why was this bill given priority now? What are the other bills that he is interested in and he believes have priority?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Obviously, the Department of Justice has many priorities. There is the response to the Supreme Court ruling with respect to prostitution in the Bedford case. There is the important debate we had last night on protecting children in criminal courts. Also before the House of Commons are the amendments to the bill that, for the first time, would protect victims in Canada.

We have a very busy justice agenda. We have a number of bills, which I just mentioned, and more to come with respect to legislation pertaining to impaired driving and legislation pertaining to other amendments to the Criminal Code. In addition, as we heard just moments ago, at the opening of the session, a lot of private member's bills have come from both the opposition and the government side. That is, in fact, the origin of this bill. It was the member for Richmond Hill who brought this matter forward in the form a private member's bill. We have adopted it as government legislation. We prioritized this bill, along with many others.

We hope we will have enough time to debate these in the coming months and see them become law for the protection of all Canadians.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the debate on Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals).

We will support the bill at second reading so that we can study it more thoroughly in committee. I would like to mention that I will try to direct my comments in the rest of my speech to the minister so that he can take our concerns about Bill C-35 into consideration.

The minister clearly defined the guidelines for developing this bill, more commonly known as Quanto's law, which refers to an incident in Edmonton. A police dog was killed during a police operation. Sadly, he was stabbed while trying to intercept a fleeing suspect. I think the police made representations and denounced the lack of legal standards regarding cruelty to animals.

In the 2013 speech from the throne, the Conservative government said that it intended to crack down on cruelty to service animals, which is why we are debating Bill C-35 today.

The general purpose of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code to create a new offence. In a nutshell, this is the definition of the offence created by Bill C-35, which will add the following after section 445: “Every one commits an offence who, wilfully and without lawful excuse, kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures a…service animal”.

In the other provisions of the Criminal Code, animal cruelty offences almost all carry a maximum sentence of up to five years in prison. This new section is in line with the other sentences in the Criminal Code. However, the first problem is that the minimum sentence is set at six months. Under Bill C-35, if a law enforcement animal is killed during the commission of an offence, while aiding a police officer in enforcing the law, a minimum sentence of six months applies.

I already asked the minister why the Conservative government is choosing once again to attack judicial discretion and go against what almost every criminal law and criminal justice expert is saying, namely that mandatory minimum sentences do nothing but hinder the justice system. It is recognized. Even experts in the U.S., which as we know chose to adopt a much harsher and punitive approach to criminals, are backtracking. They are telling the Conservative government that they already tried this approach, but it did not work. The United States currently has the highest incarceration rate in the world and that comes with a hefty price tag.

We realize that the idea behind minimum sentencing was to deter people from committing offences. Even the Department of Justice has recognized that the deterrent effect of minimum sentences has produced very little return on investment. The justice system is even more packed than before and the incarceration rate is going through the roof. Minimum sentences cause all sorts of problems.

I do not understand why the government wants to bring in a six-month minimum sentence for this type of offence. Let us be clear: animal cruelty is absolutely unimaginable. However, I know how the Conservatives operate.They will immediately point the finger to the NDP and say that we are siding with criminals and so on, but that is not true.

We simply want to have the best possible legislation that respects the fundamental principles of Canada and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by imposing appropriate sentences on people charged with animal cruelty. The second problem has to do with consecutive sentences when an offence is committed against a police dog.

These two problems call for this bill to be studied in committee so that we can hear from experts on the matter. We know for certain that mandatory minimum sentences do not work. They eliminate judicial discretion and dramatically increase the incarceration rate. We already have a major problem when it comes to access to justice and there are already delays in proceedings.

I think I have made myself clear. I therefore ask the Minister of Justice to work with us to find a solution that honours not only the great work that law enforcement and military animals do every day, but also the fundamental principles of our justice system.

Furthermore, I think it is important to add something here about aggravating circumstances. The last clause of Bill C-35, which provides direction to courts on sentencing the accused, is worded in such a way that judges and courts must take into account the deterrent effect of the sentence. Courts are being given some discretion in imposing a sentence, but at the same time, they are being forced to impose a minimum sentence of six months.

I would like to tell the Minister of Justice that the aggravating circumstances in the last clause of the bill could be a better legislative measure than imposing a minimum sentence. The last clause of the bill could be worded in such a way that courts should take into consideration the deterrent effect intended by the legislation, but also the aggravating circumstances of an offence, so that judges can impose the appropriate sentence for an offence.

I would like the minister to work with us and realize that the minimum sentence might not be the best legislative measure.

As another aside, I would like to talk about animal cruelty. Since the Conservative government came to power in 2006, it has done nothing. It has never taken into account our position on animal cruelty. We have all had animals before, and many of us might have pets.

Everyone can agree that they are family members. We love them like our children, brothers or sisters. When I go door to door in my riding, I see that people love their animals, and I am sure that all my colleagues have seen this too. Animal cruelty is repugnant to all of us, to all Quebeckers and all Canadians.

Preventing animal cruelty is one of the Conservative government's priorities. If the government is looking to introduce this bill now and pass it before Parliament breaks for the summer, it must be because the government believes that animal cruelty is an extremely important subject and must be regulated. I would therefore like to talk about two bills that the NDP introduced in this Parliament, and I would like the minister to tell me whether or not the Conservatives will support them.

The first is Bill C-232, which was introduced by my colleague from Parkdale—High Park. This bill would remove animals from the section of the Criminal Code on property and create a new section for animal cruelty offences. In short, animals would be considered people and not property. Under the existing legislation and the Criminal Code, a person must own the animal or have some connection to it in order to be found guilty of animal cruelty. The definition of “animal” is inadequate. It must be reviewed and so must the provisions of the Criminal Code.

Bill C-232 would allow the justice system to deal more effectively with animal cruelty offences and increase the possibility of conviction for animal cruelty offences. This is a good bill. My colleague from Parkdale—High Park met with thousands of people who support this bill. I would therefore like to ask the minister if he will work with the NDP to regulate animal cruelty offences and strengthen the provisions in that regard.

The second bill I would like to talk about is Bill C-592, which was introduced by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. This bill seeks to better define what an animal is under the Criminal Code and define what is meant by intent and acts of cruelty. I would once again like the minister to tell me whether the Conservative government will support these two bills, Bill C-592 and Bill C-232, which seek to modernize the Criminal Code and better regulate the treatment of animals.

What message does the government want to send to all Canadians?

After what happened in Edmonton, it is completely understandable for people to be outraged. This incident was the last straw and it showed the importance of this issue and the gaps in the Criminal Code when it comes to animal cruelty.

It is all well and good to regulate in response to a situation but what about the thousands of other situations that we hear about in the media regarding shelters and slaughterhouses? What are we doing right now to regulate animal cruelty?

I would like to thank the minister for introducing this bill. I think we should work on it, and I hope that the minister will be open to some amendments.

Today I would like to ask the government what it is doing to regulate animal cruelty. There have been scandals in the past several years about mistreatment in shelters and slaughterhouses. Why have they not done anything? Why did they just decide now to introduce this bill, a bill that only addresses a small fraction of animals? This bill addresses trained law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals. The word "trained" is part of the definition. What are they doing for animals destined for consumption? What about animals in shelters or animals that are abandoned?

It is important to understand that all animals are worthy of being protected. I do not want anyone to interpret what I am saying as meaning that we do not agree with protecting law enforcement or military animals. I think this is a good initiative, but what about all the other animals?

The fact that the definition being added to the Criminal Code covers trained animals means that some animals may be excluded. What is the difference between a law enforcement animal and a domestic animal, for example, in a case in which a dog is killed while trying to defend his owner from a thief? The dog is not necessarily trained for that. There are a number of situations that the Conservative government does not seem to consider important. The government may think that the legislation is enough, but it is not. Canadians have spoken out, and they have called on the government to modernize the Criminal Code.

I would simply like to reach out to the minister and ask him what we can do today to pass laws regarding animal cruelty.

The NDP is here today. I hope to have the minister's support for our Bill C-592 and Bill C-232, so that we can work together to ensure that individuals found guilty of mistreating animals receive the penalties they deserve.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the NDP for her thoughtful speech. In response to her query about other NDP private members' motions and bills, they will follow the normal course and there will be opportunity to debate them in the House. However, we are here to talk about a specific government initiative.

As with last night, when we discussed the very important subject of protection for children from sexual predators, I find it somewhat stunning and perhaps disingenuous that NDP members always tend to present the argument that a bill is coming too late, or it is not soon enough, or that it should have been presented sooner, yet in the same breath suggest that it is flawed and cannot proceed and that mandatory minimum penalties when children are sexually abused or when a service animal is killed in the line of duty are somehow, in some way, offensive to their sensibilities and that it is offensive to Canadian values that we would ask for mandatory minimum periods of incarceration as a condemnation of that type of serious activity.

Sexually abusing a child or killing a police animal while it is conducting the task for which it is trained, in my view, requires serious denunciation. That is the view and the position of this government. If the NDP and others want to argue against that and suggest that somehow we should coddle these criminals and simply put them in counselling or on probation, then I suggest that they are sadly out of step with where Canadians see these types of criminal behaviour.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are having a reasonable debate in the House of Commons, so I would appreciate it if the minister would respect each and every opinion and not make unfair insinuations about my intentions. I said that Bill C-35 was important and that it is a good first step. We can work with it.

The Minister of Justice is not even listening to his own experts, who are saying that minimum penalties do not have the intended deterrent effect. They do not work. That is what the United States and experts from the minister's own department are saying. All I am asking is that we create the best legislation possible for service animals and for all animals.

It is easy for the minister to rise, point a finger at members of the opposition and make us out to be the bad guys. However, I am simply asking if he is ready to take up the fight against animal cruelty right now and agree to our initiatives, which are in line with the government's idea of imposing appropriate penalties on those who abuse animals.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île for her speech and for all the work she does in the House and her riding.

Does she know if the government asked for a legal opinion about this bill in order to determine if mandatory minimum penalties violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park for her work on her animal cruelty bill.

After his speech, I asked the minister whether he had asked for a legal opinion, and I got a rather evasive response. He said that a number of legal experts looked at the bill, but we do not know if they gave the government a legal opinion. The minister did not mention it in his bill.

It is clear that the government is not even listening to its own experts. We have seen that a number of times. All of the experts agree that mandatory minimum penalties do not work and that they take away from a judge's discretion in court. Will the minister take that into account at the committee stage? I hope so.

It in no way detracts from the importance of imposing appropriate penalties on those who abuse animals, but I do not think that mandatory minimum penalties are the best way to go.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for her speech, and particularly for correcting the Minister of Justice as she did. The speech made by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île was eminently reasonable, in fact.

The Minister of Justice wanted to send a message during questions and comments, and I simply had to ask him whether that message was directed to a specific constituency. We may wonder. This is a very particular bill, with very strong images, that is of very limited use. In view of the provisions for mandatory minimum sentences and consecutive sentences, it could even have negative consequences.

What exacting and rigorous work does my colleague want to do, therefore, to improve this bill in committee?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As I said in my speech, in any event, we are going to support the bill at second reading so it can be referred to committee. If the minister refuses to listen to his own experts, we are going to hear what they have to say about consecutive sentences and mandatory minimum sentences, in the hope that the minister will want to work with us to make this bill as good as it can be—a bill that does not reflect a consensus, but adheres to the spirit of both our system of justice and the law. That would strike a good balance.

What is most important is to have a balance between a bill that legislates on a subject as sensitive and important as cruelty to animals and our justice system, our judges, our experts, and the people who work on the ground.

I hope with all my heart that we will have the support of the government and we will work with it to achieve the best bill possible.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's remarks and the minister's questions, and I want to ask the member something in all seriousness. I listened closely to the minister's words, and he basically accused the member, because she raised some questions on mandatory minimums, of coddling criminals.

I do not believe that to be the case at all, but I will give her the opportunity to respond. The minister basically accused the party of coddling criminals. Is that what we do in when we hold debate on the bill?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague raises an important point about the state of democracy in this Parliament.

I would like to tell the Minister that I came here three years ago, and unfortunately, every time I have risen in the House to state my position and what I thought was best for Canadians, I could be accused of all sorts of things, such as wanting to coddle criminals and be their friend.

In my opinion, every member of Parliament is entitled to a certain degree of credibility. Each one of us is entitled to our opinion so that we can democratically debate an idea, without being accused of being a traitor or of having bad intentions.

Clearly, we are all here for the purpose of legislating. We are legislators, and I think it is important to have a respectful debate. I am entitled to respect, as is every member of this Parliament.

I do not feel insulted by the minister’s remarks, but I would like him to at least respect diverse opinions.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to speak to this bill, Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals), that was introduced for first reading on May 12.

The origin of this bill came about following the most recent death of a police service dog with the Edmonton Police Service, by the name of “Quanto”. The Conservative member for Richmond Hill presented a similar bill in the fall of 2013, and I congratulate him for that.

This practice is becoming increasingly common, for there to be criminal sanctions imposed on those who harm service animals in other jurisdictions, and the reasoning is the same. These animals provide a service for which they are injected often into dangerous situations, as in the case of police and military animals. I believe the member for Richmond Hill and I were on the same educational trip to Israel where we saw military dogs in action, doing extremely good work; whether with explosives, taking down individuals, or tracking terrorists who might come through some of the security fences to do harm. Those dogs are unbelievably well trained. They provide a public service to law enforcement or military, or against terrorist attacks.

At the same time, all service animals will fill a role that is a critical extension to those using them and thus are animals that must be present in high-risk situations. They go into a crime scene; they protect law enforcement officers from attack by criminals; they are involved in looking for explosives, so these animals are often put into high-risk situations.

The issue is not entirely about protecting these animals, but rather about ensuring that the legislative mechanisms would achieve these objectives. That is what we are talking about today. We had to distinguish between the two. If there is some criticism of this legislation, as we just had a discussion about a moment ago, that does not necessarily mean that there is a problem with the intent of this legislation, which is to protect the animals. There may be a problem with the design of the legislation and how it would be carried out, rather than with the original objective of protecting those animals. It is important to place this legislation in context.

In the course of the past 48 years, 10 police dogs have been killed in the line of duty. The RCMP, Canada Border Services Agency, and Correctional Service have 310 dogs in service currently. The scale of the offence is not as significant as the Conservatives themselves have been implying. I look to the minister's remarks to the member who just spoke. Because there was criticism raised to this bill on mandatory minimums, the member was basically accused of coddling criminals. We have to keep in focus the legislation itself. We need to ensure that the legislation would do what it would be intended to do and would not get thrown out by courts down the road. The point is that the scale of the offence is not as significant as the government has been implying, but that does not minimize the fact that the protection of service animals should be acted upon.

The legislation, while supportable, must be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration and careful examination. I made that point earlier.

The statement introducing Bill C-35 contains the following background information related to the animals to be covered. The legislation proposes Criminal Code amendments that would create a new offence specifically prohibiting the injuring or killing of animals trained and being used to help law enforcement officers, persons with disabilities, or the Canadian Armed Forces.

Persons convicted of such an offence could face up to five years' imprisonment with a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison in cases where a law enforcement animal is killed while assisting a law enforcement officer in enforcing the law and the offence is prosecuted by indictment.

If a law enforcement officer is assaulted or a law enforcement animal is injured or killed while on duty, the sentence for that offence would be served consecutively under this legislation to any other sentences imposed on the offender arising out of the same event. I will explain later why we are concerned about that consecutive sentencing as it does take away judges' discretion and maybe at the risk of losing the legislation.

The RCMP currently has 157 police service dogs in service across Canada; 135 are general duty profile dogs and 22 are detection profile dogs. They are used to help find lost persons, track criminals, and search for items such as narcotics, explosives, and crime scene evidence.

In addition to the RCMP, provincial and municipal police services across Canada have integrated police service dogs as part of their everyday service delivery in our communities.

Canada Border Services Agency has 53 dog and handler teams that help to detect contraband drugs and firearms, undeclared currency, and food, plant, and animal products. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you have seen them work, but these dogs are absolutely amazing in terms of how they can find firearms and narcotics. You may have had an opportunity in an airport to see a dog being led by a Canada Border Services Agency officer checking to see if there are any drugs in baggage. It is absolutely amazing to see the dogs work. They run across the baggage and sniff out narcotics if they are there. They do provide a marvellous public service for Canadians.

As I mentioned a moment ago, when we were in Israel over a year ago we saw how the dogs there could find weapons hidden in vehicles. I cannot emphasize enough the service that these extremely well trained animals do for the public.

Correctional Service Canada uses dogs to help stop the flow of illicit drugs and contraband into federal correctional institutions. It has over 100 dog and handler teams across the country.

The justice for animals in service act applies to law enforcement service animals and Canadian Armed Forces animals. In practical terms, dogs would be the primary animals protected by this new legislation, given that they are the animals most often trained and used to assist law enforcement officers and persons with disabilities.

However, horses are also used by some police forces and the minister in his remarks earlier mentioned that as well. Also, other kinds of animals can be trained as service animals to assist persons with disabilities. They all, as I understand it, would be protected under the justice for animals in service act.

According to the Canadian Police Canine Association, 10 police dogs were killed in the line of duty between May 25, 1965 and October 7, 2013. That is a period of 48 years. Of those dogs, three were killed in the past decade. As indicated, the RCMP, Canada Border Services Agency, and Correctional Service Canada have 310 dogs currently in service.

The Toronto Police Service reported the death of a police horse in 2006.

There is considerable investment in terms of resources in the training of service dogs. The RCMP has indicated that it has 112 police dog teams in Canada at a cost of $60,000 per team. What should also be considered is that service animals, while highly trained, are companions for the officers and individuals that they serve. I will come back to my experience with the police officers, correctional officials, and military personnel who handle these dogs. In many cases, the dogs become a lifelong companion. They are extremely close. The team relationship between the handler and the dog is quite extraordinary.

What requires clarification in this legislation is the issue of service animals. The definition set out in clause 3 refers to “an animal that is required by a person with a disability for assistance”. The issue is how many incidents the government has found with respect to service animals being killed or injured.

The Prime Minister said in a statement on May 12, 2014, that this legislation would send the message that “violence against service animals is unacceptable”. The question is the extent of the problem being addressed with these changes to the Criminal Code.

The legislation, Bill C-35, is not dissimilar to legal sanctions being imposed in other jurisdictions with respect to the protection of police, military, and service animals. In the United States, the Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act contains specific provisions related to penalties for the harming or killing of federal law enforcement animals. The legislation states:

Whoever wilfully and maliciously harms any police animal, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not more than 1 year. If the offense permanently disables or disfigures the animal, or causes serious bodily injury or the death of the animal, the maximum term of imprisonment shall be 10 years.

However, under the United States' provision, there are neither consecutive sentencing provisions, nor mandatory minimums. The offences against law enforcement service animals are treated as stand-alone violations.

Support for the legislation being considered by the committee would have to ensure that the sanctions to be imposed under the legislation would withstand judicial scrutiny. In response to my earlier question, the minister did indicate that the legislation was checked for charter compliance. That is something that we really need to know.

I hope that the minister will be willing to provide that evidence to committee members to show where the legal advice came from. Is it from the Department of Justice? It is outside advice? Is there charter compliance, especially as it relates to consecutive and mandatory minimums jointly in this particular bill?

This would not be the first occasion to have arisen, as members are aware, where the Conservative government has presented a legislative mechanism containing penalty provisions that have been directly challenged by the courts. In response to what the minister said earlier, there is no problem with the government pushing the envelope and challenging the courts. That is not a problem.

The concern we may have is whether the government is taking into serious consideration some of the advice that is given to it, probably by the minister's own department. We know of certain cases of judicial appointments where the government went outside of government to get an opinion that it felt would be more in line with its thinking, and we know what happened as a result of going down that avenue.

We have seen it even in private members' bills from Conservative members with respect to implementing the Conservative tough-on-crime agenda. It has taken the direct intervention of justice legal advisers to impose amendments limiting the excessive nature of the legislation.

I have seen that in committee several times, where a private member's bill comes in. It is going to do all these wonderful things in protecting victims. The witnesses come in based on the original legislation. After the witnesses go home and leave town, the Department of Justice comes in, implements amendments, usually more than there is clauses in the bill. It completely waters the bill down so it really does not do what the original bill claimed it would do. The backbench members who brought in the bill continue to promote it as if it would and the witnesses who were before committee are usually none the wiser in how it has been watered down.

As has been pointed out by the member for Mount Royal, with respect to the concern on the Conservative government's use of both mandatory and consecutive sanctions, it is important not to remove discretion from judges by making consecutive sentences mandatory in all instances of a particular offence. At times it may be necessary, but to make it mandatory in all instances is probably not the right way to go. Doing so may result in charter infringement in a case where the totality of the punishment is no longer proportionate to the gravity of the offence or otherwise consistent with the purpose of sentencing as provided for in the Criminal Code.

It is certainly possible to make consecutive sentences the norm, while still allowing judges to order concurrent sentences in exceptional cases, providing they give reasons for departing from the usual practice. Such a check would allow Parliament to express its concern about the conduct and denounce it, while at the same time allowing judges to exercise their necessary discretion when doing so could prevent a sentence from infringing on the charter.

As with all matters of sentencing, we must remember that they are after the fact and do not serve as preventive measure, particularly as studies do not show a link between imposition of mandatory sentences and a subsequent reduction in the incidents of those said offences. The previous member spoke extensively about that issue.

These concerns were echoed recently in a Globe and Mail article, March 1, which made the following observation with respect to the use by the Conservatives of both consecutive and mandatory minimum sentencing:

The Conservative government has been overhauling the justice system in the name of crime victims, focusing on longer prison terms and limits to judges’ discretion.

But the proposed rules could run into trouble. They might clash with the Criminal Code’s “totality principle”, which says an individual’s overall sentence should not be overly harsh, or crushing; or they might fall afoul of the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment”.

“The minimums, especially consecutive minimums, don’t leave room for considering the individual offender and the nature of the offence”, Toronto defence lawyer Clayton Ruby, author of Sentencing, a textbook in its eighth edition, said in an interview. “Government doesn’t trust the judges. They appoint them, but they don’t trust them. It’s all about control”.

That is worrisome. The provisions in The Globe and Mail article relate to the attempt to use the mandatory minimum and consecutive sentencing in relation specifically to crimes against children. Bill C-35 would impose those provisions in relation to service animals.

As I have indicated, the need for the legislation may be justifiable, so it is important to have it on the floor. The concern is that once again we see the government create a sense of crisis where there is not one.

I want to emphasize in conclusion, as I have said throughout my remarks, that these service animals provide a tremendous service to Canadians and globally around the world in the protection of public safety. There needs to be measures taken, but let us be careful not to jeopardize the charter rights as well.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend. He referenced the fact that there was a need and in a roundabout way, he seemed to be leaning toward supporting the legislation. Of course we will have a rigorous examination of the bill.

I want to come directly to the point of consecutive sentences, as well as mandatory minimums. We are talking about the likelihood that in very few cases it would be six months for killing a service animal in the commission of an offence, which would be served consecutively where a police officer had been injured in the same incident. Cruel and unusual punishment might be the view of some and may be the view of some judges. Are we attacking the judiciary? Not at all. Again, and I say this for emphasis, it was a Liberal government that put the vast majority of about 60 mandatory minimum sentences into the Criminal Code. Out of some 700 plus sections of the Criminal Code, about 60 involve mandatory minimum sentences.

The member is known for his hyperbole and his exaggerations. He seemed to somehow reference that I was being insulting by defending the government's position. I did not reference a person's intelligence yesterday or today, as a member of the Liberal Party did yesterday. I did not accuse somebody of using government aircraft for personal use, which is untrue and completely false. I have never used government aircraft for anything other than government business. What happened was an attack on one's character to impugn one's integrity in the course of debate.

We are here to talk about government legislation, a bill that we think would protect animals and the public. That is the focus here. We are here to talk about legal principles. We are more than happy to do that, but impugning one's character and suggesting it is somehow malicious to respond to allegations thrown one's way is simply untrue.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the minister is referring to, but it sounds terribly serious. There was no intent to impugn character on my part. I did suggest, in defence of the NDP member earlier, that the minister was trying to accuse the NDP of coddling criminals, while talking about this bill. That was going a little overboard. However, I certainly would not impugn one's character. I quite like to stick to the facts, something the government does not always do.

I want to come back to the point earlier, which is the key concerns with this bill. The minister is correct that six months is not a lot of time. However, the principle at stake here is a judge's discretion and the fact that there are minimums put in place that may not withstand challenges if they are to occur. That is the key point. We are trying to examine the legislation and get it through. If it meets all the criteria it should meet, then let us get it through. However, we do not want to see a situation where it gets challenged in the courts and then turned back. Therefore, we are trying to help the government out. Sometimes it gets a little reckless.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the Liberals has been that mandatory minimums might somehow create a constitutional or charter challenge, and they have been bringing this up over and over again. Where this is the case, we know the rulings are clear. Where they constitute cruel and unusual punishment, they become unconstitutional. That ruling has been levied very few times on the vast majority of sanctions imposed by the Liberal government itself for mandatory minimums, as the minister indicated.

It is interesting that we are talking about that context between cruel and unusual punishment for an individual who is putting cruel and unusual treatment on a service dog. The member articulated clearly that they are well trained, that great Canadian and public expense goes into training these dogs, that there is a tremendous amount of safety and security provided to the Canadian public by these dogs and to the law enforcement officers they serve and that there is tremendous value to protecting service animals, not just police animals but service animals.

Does the member recognize the contradiction in that we are talking about effectively and reasonably sanctioning people for cruel and unusual treatment of animals that are providing our country with the greatest of service and we are letting that get hung up by an anticipatory cruel and unusual treatment of the people who are offending this law.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, what the member does not seem to understand is that the discretion of judges is important. There will be instances, there is no question in my mind, where judges can back up with evidence during a court hearing that sentences should be longer. There will be other cases where maybe sentences should be shorter. My point on this legislation is to ensure that it is not excessive in its actions and gets turned back by the courts.

The fact is, yes, if a crime has been perpetrated on an animal, a dog or a horse, and we have seen some of those, then penalties have to be imposed. There is no question about that. However, I have confidence in the judicial system in that judges will do their job. They will look at the evidence and the circumstances and impose the proper sentences.

The other thing we run into with all of these mandatory minimums, not just in this legislation, is if defence lawyers say that there are mandatory minimums and unless they fully win the case, or they are beat before they start, they may as well fight it to the end. Because there is no ability now to negotiate, no ability to come to an agreement, what happens is there is more court time taken up, more judges are needed and there is more time spent in courts with defence lawyers. They know there is a mandatory minimum and there is no way they can create the evidence to lessen the sentence, so it is all or nothing.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened intently to my friend across the way. I was substituting in the justice committee last week, during which a very interesting comment was made, and I would like his opinion on it.

Often the courts and legislators struggle to find the balance in protecting the victim with different legislation. The comment made last week by a witness was that the balance should always go to the charter and not to the victim. I would ask the member that same question.

The member talked about possible charter challenges and was concerned about that. If we are trying to find a balance, would he like the balance to go to the benefit of the charter or to the victim?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I missed that justice committee meeting. That is not my committee; I am on public safety, so I did not hear that particular statement. However, in my view, getting into that kind of a discussion is a mug's game. It is not about that issue. The charter is there to protect the rights of everyone, and the rights of victims as much as or more than anyone else's. That is the bottom line. We are very fortunate to have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our country that gives everyone those protections.

One of my concerns over some of these private members' bills coming forward at the public safety committee is that the thrust of the legislation itself often revictimizes the victims, especially when a bill comes in that a backbench member says is going to do a, b, c, and d, and after we hold the hearings and after those victims go home, the Department of Justice amends the bill with six or seven amendments and the bill no longer protects the victims the way we had hoped it would. That is revictimizing the victims.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand today and to have this opportunity, on behalf of my constituents in Richmond Hill, to speak in favour of Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, or Quanto's law.

This legislation would ensure that those who harm law enforcement, service, or Canadian Armed Forces animals face serious consequences.

Before I go on to the content of my speech, I want to take the opportunity to thank the Right Hon. Prime Minister for including this piece of legislation in the throne speech back in October of 2013. I also want to thank our Minister of Justice for the focus and attention he gave to this particular piece of legislation in his agenda of a multitude of requests and justice-related matters that he focuses on and has to focus on.

I want to also thank them for giving me credit for having introduced it as a private member's bill.

However, I do want to say this: the legislation the government has introduced would go beyond my initial private member's bill, Bill C-515, which was focused solely on law enforcement animals. The new offence proposed by Quanto's law addresses the intentional killing or injuring of a law enforcement animal, but it also includes service animals such as guide dogs for the sight-impaired and animals that are helping Canadian Armed Forces personnel carry out their duties. These animals also benefit Canadian society. I think the inclusion of them in this bill make it a much better bill, so I want to thank the Minister of Justice for expanding the bill and for tabling it in the House today.

Our government recognizes that these animals play a very important role in protecting our communities and improving the quality of life for Canadians. The proposed legislation is aimed at denouncing and deterring the wilful harming of specially trained animals used to help law enforcement officers, persons with disabilities, or the Canadian Armed Forces.

In regard to just that statement by itself, if there is anything we could do as a Parliament to denounce and deter those who would have that inclination, that intent, to hurt a service animal that is there to protect us, to protect human beings, to protect our society, to protect our communities, that in and of itself is, I believe, strong enough justification for all members of this chamber, irrespective of party affiliation, to give serious consideration to supporting Bill C-35, Quanto's law.

I know that from time to time in this House we see, on an ongoing basis, some pretty heated debate. We get partisan comments on all sides of the House, and I understand that. It is the government's role to govern and to bring in legislation; it is the opposition's role to hold the government to account.

However, I believe this is one piece of legislation that transcends the lines of partisanship. It would impose penalties upon those who would harm those service animals we train to protect us.

We heard a bit about the cost of training such animals. I have read that it costs upwards of $60,000 to train a police dog, for example, and in excess of $40,000 to train a guide dog. A lot of focus has gone into training these animals and developing them as part of a team to protect their partners in the execution of their duties.

I realize that cost should not drive justice legislation, but I want to point out that in addition to the obvious benefits that we get when these animals are protecting us, it does cost a lot of money to train them in the first place.

The introduction of this legislation fulfills our government's promise in the 2013 throne speech to recognize the daily risks taken by police officers and their service animals in their efforts and to enforce the law and protect Canadians in their communities.

The legislation honours Quanto, a police dog stabbed to death in the line of duty while trying to apprehend a fleeing suspect in Edmonton, Alberta. Quanto had four years of decorated service and had participated in more than 100 arrests prior to his death in October 2013.

It is not lost on me, and I am sure it is not lost on a lot of Canadians, that the stabbing of Quanto while the suspect was being apprehended could have easily been done to his partner, Constable Matt Williamson, but the animal was there to protect his partner and took the hit for him. It was a selfless act on the part of the animal. The least we can do as parliamentarians is ensure that we have legislation that imposes penalties on those who would act in such a heinous manner toward an animal that is there to protect us.

I also want to pay tribute to the many animals, police service animals in particular, that have lost their lives in the line of duty. When I introduced my private member's bill back in 2013, I referred to Brigadier, a police horse in the Toronto Police Service that was deliberately hit by a vehicle driven by a criminal. That hit cost the animal its life, but it protected Constable Kevin Bradfield, who sustained some injury but did not take the impact. The animal took the impact of that hit. This is yet another example of a selfless act by a police animal hurt in the line of duty while protecting its partner, protecting a human being.

I would like to quote the Prime Minister when he was in Edmonton a few weeks ago to announce this legislation. His words are worthy of mention once again for the benefit of all members in the House today and for those throughout the country who are watching us in our deliberations. This is what the Prime Minister said:

Quanto’s violent death is a powerful and sad reminder of the dangers that law enforcement animals often face in assisting officers to protect Canadians and communities. This legislation honours those faithful animals and emphasizes the special role that they play. Our Government is committed to ensuring that people who wilfully harm these animals face the full force of the law.

We know that they are animals and that they are not human beings, but just because they are animals does not mean that we of necessity have to be heartless and not recognize their selfless contribution to keeping our communities safe.

The Prime Minister went on to say:

This legislation also recognizes the vital role that service animals, such as guide dogs, play in helping persons with disabilities benefit from a better quality of life and lead more independent lives. This sends the message that violence against service animals is unacceptable and those who commit such callous acts will pay the consequences.

One of the things that has not received much focus is the impact on the partner when a service animal is hurt. An animal assigned to a police officer or assigned to someone who is sight-impaired is a partner.

In the case of someone who is blind, the service animal is the eyes of the blind person. It is a partner. It is an animal the person relies on for protection and companionship and to ensure that they are at all times kept out of harm's way. They are very important. When one of these animals is injured, it has a tremendous impact not only on Canadian society but on the partner of the animal.

Having met Constable Matthew Williamson, who was Quanto's handler, and Constable Kevin Bradfield, who was Brigadier's handler, I know the impact it had on them and their families because of the close attachment they had to those animals. They know very well that these animals were there to protect them and to apprehend criminals in the line of duty.

In our society, service animals have become an integral part of law enforcement. They assist with search and rescue efforts; tracking criminals; and searching for narcotics, explosives, crime scene evidence, and lost property. They serve as VIP protection, in some instances, and in crowd control, hostage situations, and police and community relations.

All of us as parliamentarians travel. We travel across the country and back to our ridings. Invariably, as we walk through an airport, we will see a service animal with the Canada Border Services Agency sniffing luggage as it is going around on the conveyor belt. They are trying to identify anything illicit in the luggage. Occasionally they find narcotics, which could end up in our communities, schools, around our families, and in our malls. They could end up doing no good and an awful lot of harm to Canadians. We have to thank the animals who have had tens of thousands of dollars worth of training to sniff out those narcotics before they get to our communities.

Do we not have a responsibility to do something a little extra to protect these animals? I would submit that we absolutely do. It is our obligation, and that is what this bill aims to do.

The RCMP currently has 157 police service dogs in service across Canada. Of those, 135 are general duty police profile dogs and 22 are detection profile dogs. They have specific training to execute their responsibilities.

In addition to the RCMP, provincial and municipal police departments across Canada have integrated police service dogs as part of their everyday service delivery in our communities. I spoke to the York Regional Police Chief, Eric Jolliffe, and he congratulated me when I initially proposed this bill to the House. He spoke to me as recently as a few weeks ago about how pleased he is that we are moving forward with this piece of legislation, as York Regional Police have a very large canine unit.

By the way, I would like all members of the House to know that law enforcement officers are thrilled that finally we are focusing on protecting their partners that are used as tools in the execution of their duty of protecting Canadians.

Service animals' involvement in law enforcement goes well beyond the police. As I mentioned earlier, the Canada Border Services Agency uses them. In fact, the CBSA has 53 dog and handler teams that help to detect contraband drugs and firearms, undeclared currency, and food, plant, and animal products. That just opens up a whole slew of things we could be discussing here today.

Additionally, Correctional Service Canada uses dogs to help stop the flow of illicit drugs and contraband into federal correctional institutions. They have over 100 dog and handler teams across Canada.

Service animals are active and indispensable members of our society who, with their handlers, work with dedication to ensure that Canadians remain safe in their communities.

I could expand on the importance of having service animals at correctional institutions, because keeping drugs and contraband out of our correctional institutions certainly will assist in the rehabilitation of those individuals who are incarcerated.

Not only have they been given important responsibilities, but these animals also have an unbreakable bond with the officers who have the honour to be their handlers. That makes losing a service animal in the line of duty very difficult.

Constable Matthew Williamson of the Edmonton Police Service Canine Unit, who was Quanto's handler, along with the entire Edmonton Police Service, was shocked by the loss of their friend Quanto.

Scott Pattison, spokesperson with the Edmonton Police Service, noted the strong connection between the handlers and the dogs, saying that, “The dogs go home with the members and they’re part of their own families really. These animals perform their jobs every single night on behalf of the citizens of this city with extreme courage”. That applies to every police dog across this country.

That is why our government was extremely proud to introduce this legislation to ensure that harm committed against these dedicated animals would become a criminal offence.

Bill C-35 proposes Criminal Code amendments that would create a new offence specifically prohibiting the injuring or killing of animals trained to help law enforcement officers, persons with disabilities, and the Canadian Armed Forces.

The member for Malpeque earlier mentioned our visit to the canine unit in Israel. We saw first-hand an example of how these animals perform in trying to protect military officers. It is very impressive, and it is selfless service on the part of the animal.

Persons convicted of such an offence could face up to five years of imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison in cases where a law enforcement animal was killed while assisting an officer in executing the law and the offence was prosecuted by indictment.

The minimum sentence would be six months. I have heard members in this House this morning speak about the mandatory minimum sentence of six months. I want to highlight once again that it is six months. It is a minimum of six months for someone who pulls out a knife in Edmonton and repeatedly stabs an animal. It is unbelievable.

To ensure that persons convicted of harming police service animals would be sentenced properly according to the crimes committed, Bill C-35 contains measures whereby if a law enforcement officer was assaulted or a law enforcement animal was injured or killed while on duty, the sentence for that offence would be served consecutive to any other sentence imposed on the offender arising from the same event. This would ensure that the punishment matched the nature of the crime.

The justice for animals in service act applies to law enforcement animals, service animals, and Canadian Armed Forces animals. In practical terms, we need to protect these animals.

I am running out of time, so I will conclude by saying that our government's tough-on-crime legislation is being met with continued dedication as we work to ensure that our justice system is fair and efficient. Enacting this particular piece of legislation would finally codify an official offence for the act of injuring or killing service animals.

We must stand up and protect these animals who are giving their lives to protect us. I urge every member of this House to reflect on these comments, look in their own hearts, and join us in unanimously passing this very important piece of legislation.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition will support this bill at second reading so that it can be studied in committee, but I want to inform my hon. Conservative colleague that, once again, this bill is an affront to the discretionary power of judges. The minimum penalty will be less than two years, so once again, the federal government is making a decision that dumps a responsibility onto the provinces. Many provincial legislatures have raised this problem.

Furthermore, I would like to know why the government did not consider the opinion of the provinces, which are calling on the government to stop doing this. The dog that was stabbed and unfortunately killed was the inspiration behind this bill. Is it not true that the person who committed this crime received some rather harsh penalties? This bill addresses something that is not really a problem, and it creates more discord with respect to the provinces' prison system.

Will my colleague at least admit that there are problems with this bill?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my hon. colleague opposite for his question. It is a very pertinent and important one.

I am delighted to see that the official opposition will be supporting the bill through to second reading, and it will have an opportunity to be discussed and deliberated on by the justice committee. As the justice minister said this morning, he would be delighted to appear before the justice committee along with his officials to respond to a lot of the questions.

I will say this. With respect to mandatory minimum sentences, we are talking about a six-month period. The criminal who stabbed Quanto has already been charged and sentenced and is imprisoned in Edmonton.

It would be a six-month period, taking into consideration a lot of breaks these criminals get for time served before they are actually convicted. It could even be considerably shorter. The least we can ask for, the least we can expect, is that someone is imprisoned for a minimum of six months for such a heinous crime.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's speech. He seemed to be saying that animals, especially service dogs, are not mere property. They are loyal friends, if I am not mistaken.

Would the member not support a bill like the bill the Chrétien government brought in that was stuck in the Senate and then was brought in as a private member's bill by the former member for Ajax—Pickering, Mark Holland, to strengthen the rights of animals such that they would not be considered mere property that can be mistreated by their owners?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question, and I also want to thank the Liberals for their indication that they will be supporting this bill through to second reading. I can see that all members in the House see the benefit of having important legislation like this enacted in this Parliament.

With respect to another piece of legislation, I cannot speak to the legislation that was introduced in a previous Parliament. I am not familiar with it. However, I will say that I am an animal lover. Anything we can do to protect our animals we should be doing. This particular piece of legislation focuses on those animals that have no choice. They are, from puppies, trained to protect. They are put in the line of duty, and they do it wholeheartedly and with such commitment that it is a lesson for us as human beings. It is really selfless commitment. They put their lives in danger to protect their partners and to protect all of us.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his great speech and all the work he has done on this since becoming a member of Parliament. I know it is well received by his community and by everybody right across Canada, because it is indeed an important piece of legislation.

It is great to hear that both the NDP and the Liberals are prepared to support this to go through to committee. The one issue that they continue to raise is the mandatory minimum aspect of the sentence.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on whether he feels that past practices of six months' sentence for stabbing a law enforcement dog in such a cruel and heinous way or intentionally driving a vehicle into a horse that is serving the better interests of the Canadian public is really reflective of the nature of that kind of crime. Also how important is it to send a clear signal that the public sentiment and support for service animals does indeed warrant, in the greater public interest, the sanctions that are being proposed under this piece of legislation?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Yukon for that very important question, but I also want to take this opportunity to thank him for his service as a correctional and law enforcement officer spanning better than 20 years. He is an example for many people of someone who has dedicated his life to protecting the general public.

In response to the question, I obviously did not feel that the current legislation was sufficient to protect these animals, and I fully endorse and support Bill C-35, because I believe that the Minister of Justice has shown his tremendous focus and attention to this particular aspect that he would like corrected in the Criminal Code by bringing it forward and tabling it here today. I thank the Minister of Justice again for that, and I thank the member for his question.

I believe Canadians right across this great country of ours would agree with all members in the House that it is about time we did something to protect law enforcement and service animals.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Richmond Hill for his speech.

The NDP has clearly said that it will support the bill at second reading in order to increase co-operation with the government, since some aspects of this bill really bother us. The intent behind this bill is laudable. I do not deny that.

However, the Minister of Justice wanted to send a message regarding a bill that addresses a very specific problem and a very limited reality. We all agree that this bill targets a very small number of animals who act in service capacities. I told the minister that we have seen a huge number of bills that address technicalities and very specific situations, and I called this pandering to specific groups.

Could my colleague tell us what strong message will ultimately be sent?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member, and I want to thank him for reiterating once again that the NDP will be supporting the bill through second reading, and their comments will be well represented at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

However, the minister spoke this morning about a message of denunciation and deterrence, to which the member referred. It was a question from a member opposite asking who this message is for. It is a message for all Canadians, particularly for those who would not think twice about hurting a service animal that is in the line of duty, whether it is protecting a person who is sight impaired, or a police officer, or someone from the military.

It is a very strong message from this Government of Canada, this 41st Parliament, that we are here to protect Canadians and that we will stand by those animals that police services and military people across the country are using as tools to assist them in the execution of their very important duties.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of the constituents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. I note that there are many pressing issues about which people in my community have communicated with me.

They have contacted me about the global crisis of climate change and the need for urgent action. They have contacted me about the need for an inquiry into the missing and murdered aboriginal women. I hear frequently about the lack of affordable housing. I hear about the tremendous stress that families are under because of the lack of child care. Certainly, I hear about the lack of good quality jobs; and I often hear about the hollowing out of the manufacturing sector in Ontario.

There are many urgent matters that should be coming before the House, but given that the government is proposing Bill C-35, I am happy to speak to it. It is an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning law enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals.

Anybody from my city, Toronto, will certainly remember the terrible incident of the death of a police service horse called Brigadier. That was back in 2006, when a hit and run driver apparently intentionally ran into Brigadier, a magnificent Belgian cross police horse. He was quite a striking animal who was unfortunately rammed by a speeding car, which resulted in his death. It was a pretty horrific event.

There is a more recent event that has provoked Bill C-35, known as Quanto's law. A police service dog was stabbed to death by a suspect trying to flee, back in 2013. The perpetrator of that offence pleaded guilty to animal cruelty and other offences. He was eventually sentenced to 26 months in prison and banned from owning a pet for 25 years.

These incidents of malicious acts against service animals do occur. They occur rarely, thank goodness, but they do occur. It is a flaw in the current provisions around animal cruelty in the Criminal Code that there is no specific provision for dealing with acts against these service and law enforcement animals.

What this bill would do is strengthen penalties against those who attack law enforcement animals, service animals, or Canadian Armed Forces animals. It would do this by creating a new offence that specifically prohibits anyone from killing, wounding, poisoning, or injuring trained animals that work for police, persons with disabilities, or the Canadian Armed Forces. It would sentence them to up to five years. It would be a maximum of five years and a minimum of six months in prison.

If the offence were committed during the line of duty of the service animal, the offence would be served consecutively with any other punishment imposed on the perpetrator.

Whether they are enforcement animals or service animals, we all see and admire them. They are highly trained, wonderful species. They provide a great service to our society. There should be a provision in the Criminal Code that deals specifically with these animals.

I will say, though, that our animal cruelty legislation in general, which is more than 120 years old, needs a serious update. There was a little bit of tinkering a few years ago through a Senate bill, but the fundamental problem with our animal cruelty laws is that they treat animals as property. They are under the property provisions of the Criminal Code, rather than recognizing that animals are sentient beings.

I have a private member's bill, Bill C-232, that would update the animal cruelty legislation, very specifically excluding farm operations, hunting, and fishing. It is more about companion animals. What it would do is recognize that animals are not property like a car or a barn. They are in fact sentient beings. The bar that is set today in order to achieve a conviction is one of wilful neglect. It is that term, “wilful neglect”, or wilfully acting to harm an animal that creates a bar that is very difficult for the criminal justice system to achieve.

It is not that there are not convictions under this legislation. There are. However, just strengthening the penalties, as was done a few years ago, does not fundamentally change this more than 120-year-old legislation. It needs to be changed to recognize animals, as we are talking about them today as service animals, are thinking, feeling creatures that certainly feel pain and provide a great service to humans, whether they are working with people with disabilities, with law enforcement agencies, or as beloved companions in people's homes. They are not the same as inanimate objects and ought to be treated differently under the Criminal Code. That is what my private member's bill is arguing for.

The bill before us today, Bill C-35, would serve to make a positive change to the Criminal Code in that it would include law enforcement animals and service animals as a distinct category, because they are performing a function defined in law, helping to enforce our laws, or supporting people who are especially vulnerable. It is appropriate that there would be special recognition for these animals and that there would be special penalties, especially for animals who are injured or killed in their line of work. That is absolutely what should happen.

What I am concerned about, and several members in the House today have expressed this concern, is that a bill that is essentially laudable is in fact tainted by the introduction of minimum sentencing. Our concern is that it is a frequent tactic by the federal government to impose minimum sentences and thereby remove discretion from the courts when it comes to sentencing. What we find sometimes is that judges will not convict because they do not believe the minimum sentence is warranted. Certainly it has been found that minimum sentences are not a deterrent for people committing crimes. They have not served that purpose; so we really question the value of repeatedly imposing minimum sentences in legislation, as the Conservatives are wont to do.

Also, we are concerned about consecutive sentencing, which again limits the ability of the courts. That is why, while we support the bill in principle, we want to see it studied at committee. Hopefully, there will be some justification for the proposed minimum sentencing.

We are here in the House, and I do not have a lot of company here.

A lot of members have missed their shifts in the House. We have had Conservatives and Liberals missing 26 shifts in the last little while. There are a lot of procedural games going on. As New Democrats, we are going to push back against that. We want to do the work of the House and focus on that.

I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #160

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion defeated.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to continue the debate on Bill C-35. I will share my time with my esteemed colleague from Joliette.

I have been a member of this House for three years now. It is widely recognized that the Conservatives have tabled many bills, often with commendable intentions. I had the honour of being a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for a few months, and we looked at a large number of private members' bills aimed at amending the Criminal Code and fixing other very specific aspects.

However, this piecemeal approach is distressing because it addresses few problems and causes several more. We are dealing with the Criminal Code in an improvised and isolated manner, when we should be looking at it as a whole, and in particular, we need to ensure that our initiatives will have a real impact and will truly solve the problems.

On several occasions, I have seen the government's obsession with imposing mandatory minimum sentences at all costs and restricting the ability of the courts to make decisions.

The very big problem is that the experts contradict the approach of the government and of certain backbench members once the bill is passed. The government is not reasonable and makes amendments to the Criminal Code or enacts new laws that are subsequently challenged. They fall before the courts under the weight of the facts, and the problem the government and my backbench colleagues thought they had solved remains intact. We can even wind up with legislative voids.

That is why the New Democratic Party will support Bill C-35 at second reading so that we can do some hard work in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I am very proud to do that with all my colleagues. We will be able to examine the problems and offer constructive solutions to the Minister of Justice and to all committee members so that this bill can achieve its aims.

I do not mean to downplay the purpose of this bill, which is the subject here, quite to the contrary. It is my pleasure to have a brother-in-law who is a police officer in Montreal. He is a dog handler. I have met his work partners on numerous occasions and have observed that my brother-in-law, Danny, is completely devoted. He has developed a very profound attachment to the dogs he has trained, cares for, and works with every day.

It is quite remarkable to see how extensive a police dog’s training is. The dog carries out very specific missions and, in particular, is a huge asset to its handler, the police officer responsible for it, and to the entire unit to which the officer in question belongs. I have personally witnessed this, and I was very pleased to see it. I commend Danny and will be happy to have a good beer with him over the summer and to see him at work over his barbecue.

I am afraid the problem raised will absolutely not be corrected by introducing mandatory six-month minimums and penalties that may be added consecutively to other penalties imposed in court.

We must be careful not to give in to wishful thinking. We must not believe, in a closed-minded and ideological way, in the deterrent aspect of sentences that may be imposed. It is very important that prosecutors, judges and police officers have the tools they need to impose an appropriate sentence suited to the crime committed if the person is found guilty. Mandatory minimum sentences, on the other hand, remove the court’s leeway. They prevent our judges from assessing the situation as a whole and from exercising complete latitude to impose a particularly heavy sentence where there are aggravating factors or, on the contrary, a distinctly lighter sentence where circumstances so require.

This latitude is one of the fundamental elements of our system of justice. In Canada, we have a lot to be proud of. Having latitude ensures that the accused are not subject to potential injustices and allows them to avoid presumptions related to the circumstances, a condition or issues that we, as legislators, cannot completely provide for except by making multiple exceptions that will have no other effect than to make the law unwieldy and even lead us to dead ends or vacuums. These can be much more dangerous than more general rules that provide latitude, for both the prosecutor and the judge, to establish the sentence for an accused based on the situation.

This problem of reducing flexibility is something I have witnessed directly, both as a member of the House for the past three years, and in particular as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for a considerable period of time. Reducing flexibility creates two problems. First, it creates a false sense of security amongst Canadians. That is particularly worrisome. We absolutely cannot allow citizens to wrongly believe that everything is solved and that they no longer have to worry about the possibility of certain crimes being committed. That is part of our responsibility.

Obviously, the other problem is believing that the government's approach solves everything and that crime will automatically be reduced. This has not been proven. On the contrary, some of my colleagues have explained in their previous speeches that the experience around the world, and especially in the southern part of the province, have shown the opposite.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou on his work. He gave a fine presentation on the issues and the impact of our choices in Ottawa.

I would like him to talk about the fact that the NDP and other members of the House have introduced bills against animal cruelty and the Conservatives have voted against all those bills.

Some Conservative members stood up to say that they were against all forms of animal cruelty, but they are voting against any related bills brought before Parliament.

However, the Conservatives are introducing in the House a bill that targets only one category of animals. I find that odd. Could my colleague elaborate on that?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord for his particularly relevant question.

Right now, we are unfortunately working in poor conditions. The government has imposed special working conditions for the month of June, in addition to repeated time allocation motions. I will not get into the purely partisan attempts to work against us at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It is really sad. My colleague raises a very important point.

Clearly, like any of the 308 legitimate representatives in the House, we have proposals on the table. I would mention Bill C-232 introduced by my colleague from Parkdale—High Park and Bill C-592 introduced by my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Those two bills have a broader perspective and might overlap somewhat with the bill we are examining. I will certainly appeal to the good faith and co-operation of my colleagues from all political parties to support the two bills I just mentioned.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his speech. I would like his thoughts on the Conservative government's agenda.

The Minister of Justice came to the House to make a speech about this bill. I also recall that initially this bill was a private member's bill.

I would like the hon. member's thoughts on why, when there are so many other very important things on the justice minister's plate, he took the time this morning to come and debate this bill. I would like my colleague's thoughts on the government's intentions behind all this.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her question and comments.

The motivations of the Minister of Justice and the government in general do make us wonder. This morning the Minister of Justice made a speech about this bill, but it is clear that the NDP has to move all the debates forward. I thank both my NDP colleagues very much for asking me questions and making comments after my speech. In the rest of House, mum's the word. Members no longer want to take part in legitimate debate, let alone talk about the issues having to do with this bill.

There is something deeply disrespectful to the public about repeated time allocation motions and the fact that my colleagues are keeping mum and refusing to have a constructive debate. We will see what happens at committee stage. Nonetheless, I hope that our amendments will be considered seriously by all members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals).

Since two of my colleagues have introduced bills on this subject and the government opposed them, I do not understand why we are being presented with this bill today. We are going to support it at second reading, but only so that it can be studied in greater depth in committee and so that it can be amended. There are two clauses that we have particular problems with: the introduction of minimum sentences and consecutive sentences.

In concrete terms, this bill amends section 445 of the Criminal Code by providing for a new offence when a service animal or a law enforcement or military animal is killed or injured in the line of duty. These animals protect their masters. The bill provides for a minimum sentence of six months if a law enforcement animal is killed in the commission of an offence. It will make the sentences imposed on a person consecutive to another sentence imposed for another offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

The government is once again demonstrating its propensity for taking away the courts’ discretion. Why is it doing this?

It is important to hear from the experts about the impact of imposing minimum sentences and consecutive sentences. If more and more people are receiving minimum sentences, and consecutive sentences are imposed, we may have to expand the prisons. That is why we recommend that the bill be examined in committee. It is very important that that the government listen to the arguments made by the opposition and the public.

Two of my colleagues introduced bills C-232 and C-592, but the government opposed them. It is important to protect our animals, but I reiterate that this bill must be referred to committee to be studied in depth. The NDP rejects any form of cruelty to animals. We have long advocated bills for the protection of our animals.

I am going to speak from personal experience. Unlike my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, I do not know any dog handlers in the police. However, I have a family, and one of my daughters has four daughters. Each of her children had a cat. Some may say that this has nothing to do with law enforcement animals, but those animals were treated very well. Each child had her pet, to talk to and comfort her.

When the cats reached the end of their lives, the parents did not abandon them to die. They took them to the veterinarian to put an end to their suffering. I also have a granddaughter who did a training placement with the Inuit and came back from northern Canada with a dog that the whole family looks after today. These animals are part of their lives. They are very important to them.

Because I was a farmer, I also had animals. When an animal was taken to slaughter, it was important that it be treated properly before its life was ended.

We often see news reports about puppy mills and about how our slaughter animals, hogs, cattle or any kind of animal, are taken to the slaughterhouse. We want those animals to be well treated along the way. When we leave Abitibi with a shipment of hogs for slaughter in Lanaudière, that is a trip of some 700 km. Those animals must be protected and their health cared for.

When I go door to door in my riding, I see that people are attached to their animals. They take care of them. I have been going to a stationary campground for 18 years. Yes, a member of Parliament at a campground. People go there with cats and dogs and pay them a great deal of attention. They spoil them and take care of them. That is why I think it is very important to watch out for animals whose purpose is to protect police officers or RCMP officers and the public. This bill provides that a person who injures an animal whose purpose is to protect its master and perhaps society should be punished and go to prison. However, are consecutive sentences necessary? I doubt it.

The NDP will vote for this bill at second reading. However, we really would like that our amendments be heard by other committee members studying this bill, that there be no time allocation and that, once the bill has reached third reading, it is a bill that will actually protect animals and people.

If I have a dog to protect me and it is killed in the course of an invasion of my home, what do I do? Will the person who has killed my dog be punished? Will he be sent to prison? Will he receive a consecutive sentence? I do not know. Perhaps that should be added to the bill, as in Bill C-592 introduced by my colleague.

I would really like to see this bill being studied in committee. Someone will be telling me shortly that I am repeating myself and talking about animals we have in our families. Those animals must be protected as well. We have no right to mistreat them. When I was on the farm, we raised two pigs because one pig all alone would be bored. You do not raise one piglet on its own; you raise two. One of my daughters did not eat pork because she had played and had fun with those two pigs, in addition to feeding them. That has somewhat changed today.

I thank all my NDP colleagues who are rising today to speak to this bill. We know that many New Democrats are speaking, but there is also room for members from the other parties.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Joliette for her speech.

I especially thank her for showing us what issues this bill fails to address. This bill very specifically targets one category of animals, those that provide assistance to the police, the Canadian Forces and people with disabilities.

My colleague raised a very interesting point about how this bill does not include other animals, whether they be pets or even wild animals, when it could have included every little creature living in our midst. This bill does not do that, unlike the bills introduced by our colleagues from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and Parkdale—High Park.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on the fact that this bill looks at only a small part of the picture instead of taking a broader and more inclusive view.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I think that this bill needs to go further. It protects dogs that work with the police, but we also need to protect all of our pets, and the government has not really talked about that.

Some of our colleagues included these animals in their bills, but those bills did not go anywhere because the other parties voted against them. It is important for all animals to be protected. If a person does not want to take care of a pet, then they should not adopt a dog, a cat or even a bird.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Joliette for her speech. She clearly showed that the members on this side of the chamber recognize the work done by service animals that help the police and others. We realize just how important that is. We cannot ignore that.

Since we are coming up to the end of the session, is my colleague curious to know why this bill is being debated now? Although it is quite commendable, this private member's bill has now become a government bill.

I am wondering what the government's priorities are right now. Can my colleague talk about that? Can she also tell us about the priorities of the official opposition?

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I too wondered why this bill was introduced today at the end of the session. It could easily have waited until next fall or some other time. We know that 2015 is an election year. I am sure the Conservatives can give us an answer.

We think that there are more important bills we should be studying at the end of the session, especially since we are sitting until midnight every night. We have time to study them.

It seems like the people talking in the House today are mostly from the NDP, not the other parties.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will have, at most, 20 minutes to talk about Bill C-35. That is actually a good thing because, as you can hear, I am a little hoarse thanks to yet another virus my children passed on to me. I will take the time to enunciate clearly to compensate for the unusually rough sound of my voice.

I am the third NDP MP in a row to speak to this bill. I would like to explain to the people who are doing us the honour of listening to us on CPAC that we are sitting until midnight every night for the entire month of June until the House adjourns. We are doing this because the Conservative government wants to move bills forward. However, people will notice that most of the MPs who are taking the time to speak to the bills being debated in the House are members of the NDP. One might have thought that the government asked for longer sitting hours because it wanted to defend its views on certain private members' bills or government bills. That is not the case. Some evenings, the Conservatives are often absent from the debates even though they themselves decided to extend sitting hours. That really bothers me. I would like to go back to the reason why this place is called what it is called. This is a parliament. We are parliamentarians, and it is our duty to rise and speak in the House on behalf of our constituents. The way the current government is running the House really bothers me. It really worries me too.

I have a few minutes to talk about Bill C-35, which would create a new offence that would apply when a law enforcement or military animal is injured or killed in the line of duty. As some of my colleagues have already pointed out, this bill was initially introduced as a private member's bill but was then taken over by the current government. We will be supporting this bill at second reading so that it can be studied in committee.

I would like to address those who are honouring us by watching us on CPAC. I want to be sure that they really understand what is happening. We are supporting the bill at second reading. It will not become law automatically. It will be introduced before one or more committees that are directly involved with the issues in the bill. I am part of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I definitely will not have the opportunity to study the bill, since it has nothing to do with fisheries. Other colleagues of mine, those who are part of the official opposition and are experts in legal matters, will make sure that they share their opinions with the committee. Some of my colleagues, who work very hard, will propose amendments. However, I have little hope that it will go well. Committees are not nearly as collaborative as they should be because of the culture this government has imposed. However, as the official opposition, we have a duty to stand up for the institutions of Parliament. We must continue to debate these issues every step of the way, despite the government's lack of good faith, in the hope that bills will be improved. That is what can happen when the work of Parliament is done properly and appropriately.

We have serious concerns about two of the bill’s provisions, in spite of the fact that we will be voting in favour of it on second reading, but not at its final reading. The first is the six-month minimum sentence provided for in the bill, and the second is that the sentence is to be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender arising out of the same offence.

Let me explain things more clearly. If a person is charged with assaulting an RCMP officer, he will certainly receive a sentence for committing that offence or for having fled from an RCMP officer. That person will have committed an offence. However, if at the same time, the officer’s dog was injured or killed, another sentence will be tacked on to the one initially imposed for the primary offence. An offender could therefore be sentenced to 18 months in jail for assaulting a police officer and to a minimum of six months in jail for having, for example, stabbed the officer’s service dog.

One important clarification needs to be made for those watching these proceedings at home. Just because we are critical of some of these provisions does not mean that we are insensitive toward animals. Members on the other side are always trying to paint us in this light. As soon as we ask questions, they claim that we are opposed to the very foundation of a bill under consideration.

The Conservatives even kept repeating that we sided with pedophiles when they introduced a highly controversial bill and lumped possession of a few marijuana plants together with amendments to the child pornography legislation. It was preposterous. I am a father and I was furious for three weeks.

The Conservatives have a habit of systematically saying that if members of the opposition ask questions about or do not support their bills, then they must be on the side of the criminals or they must hate animals. This is a completely deplorable way of engaging in a debate. Our friends opposite have a habit of acting this way.

Let me be clear that we are not against animals. I once owned a magnificent Doberman. I have fond memories of the dog training classes I took with Peanut. When we brought her home, she was so little that we named her Peanut. One hundred pounds later, we still called her Peanut.

Dog owners will understand what I am saying. I was proud of my girlfriend at the time when she would venture out late at night to pick up some milk at the corner store. She felt safe because she had a Doberman with her. Animals help people feel safe. Once we have experienced this, we are profoundly moved. I do not think that I am being overly emotional. Those who have owned pets understand the feeling.

My position today should not be seen as being anti-animal, and the NDP should absolutely not be seen as being a party that is opposed to animal rights. On the contrary: the member for Parkdale—High Park introduced Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), a bill that would repeal the cruelty to animals provisions that appear in the part of the Criminal Code that covers property, in recognition of the fact that animals can feel pain.

That fundamental change was brought forward by a New Democrat member who asked that we stop looking at animals the same way we look at a table or a chair or a doorknob. Believe it or not, the party in power opposed it. The party in power absolutely will not consider this important factor that would help raise awareness to companion animals. In spite of that, they have now introduced something very specific, like Bill C-35, which boils down the government’s interest to only a few types of animals, when it comes to improving animal rights and conditions. There is a price to be paid when we get to the courts, and that is discretion.

First, the credibility of judges is attacked, in this case with no valid or genuine justification. Quanto, an Edmonton police dog, was unfortunately stabbed to death while he was attempting to intercept a fleeing suspect, in October 2013. That is the event that inspired Bill C-35. The accused, Paul Joseph Vukmanich, pled guilty to evading police and cruelty to animals. He therefore acknowledged that it made no sense to attack the assistance animal that was working with a police officer. He was sentenced to 26 months in prison. He will be prohibited from owning a companion animal for the next 25 years. This is a superb example of the value and importance of judicial discretion. Even the idea of 25 years without a companion animal is not included in the clauses of the bill introduced today. It was a judge who, based on his wisdom and understanding of case law and of what happened during that event, reached a very worthy decision.

Constantly demanding very detailed parameters, minimum or maximum sentences, and requiring that judges follow them, as the present government does, in a way amounts to contempt for the wisdom of our judges.

In fact, when I put it to one of my rare government colleagues who spoke on the subject, the member for Richmond Hill, he was unable to refute that conclusion.

He was unable to say that the judge had erred, that the decisions made in the Paul Joseph Vukmanich case were incorrect or that the penalties were too light. Instead he outlined the Conservative Party’s positions in a highly incoherent manner. For example, he said the court had taken too long to reach a verdict in the accused’s case. Since he was awaiting his verdict in prison, he did not really serve his full 26-month sentence. What an incredible admission.

It is not because Canadian judges are soft on crime; it is because the justice system lacks the resources to ensure the work is done within a reasonable period of time. Consequently, we wind up with nonsensical situations in which someone has awaited judgment in prison for such a long time that the sentence he receives is really minimized. That has nothing to do with any alleged “softness on crime”. It has everything to do with the lack of resources in the justice system. We will have to address that in order to avoid this kind of situation, and we will not be able to do so with a bill such as this.

Every expert will tell us that the government’s tendency to constantly extend minimum sentences is contributing to an increase in the time spent mounting a defence and arguing cases in the courts and thus the time required to render verdicts. This is a highly nonsensical situation that increases costs. The government’s approach exacerbates the problem. Our judges are not too soft on crime. The problem is that criminals’ sentences are being minimized as a result of delays. They are waiting too long for their verdicts. This is incredible. Our colleagues opposite even admitted that their approach was contributing to the problem. Consequently, we are completely passing up an opportunity for a valid solution to these problems.

Another inconsistency in this bill is that minimum sentences do not lower the crime rate. Several American states were tempted by the approach the government in power has been imposing for several years, but they are now pulling back. It has not worked. In the case before us, I do not believe the accused who killed an Edmonton police officer’s dog with a knife would have said to himself as he opened the knife, “Oh my God, I may get at least six months.” I doubt he would have folded up his knife. Things do not work that way. This bill will not achieve the desired results. On the contrary, it will slow down proceedings and prevent the justice system from imposing the right sentences at the right time.

We have also addressed the question of creating a class of animals. I thank my colleague from Joliette for being the first to do so because this has been troubling me since I first examined the bill. Consider the example of an elderly couple who are starting to be a little concerned and are suffering from somewhat reduced mobility. They acquire a German shepherd, which is then trained to become a reliable guard dog that can tell the difference between an offender and a friend who is coming for coffee.

Imagine the worst scenario: this poor couple is attacked by the worst psychopath. Not only does he break in, but he also slits the dog’s throat and scatters its intestines around the apartment. He is a real psychopath.

The bill’s provisions would not apply in this case, because the dog would not be on official duty. The dog would have done its job as it was trained to do, it would have gone through the worst possible situation and would have confronted the worst psychopath in the history of crime in Canada, but it would not be protected by the law because it was not an RCMP service dog or a certified trained guide dog. Nevertheless, it would satisfy all of the bill’s criteria. It was trained to do a certain job and it died trying to do that job.

There is no logic in establishing a category of animals. The Conservatives believe that other animals doing their jobs do not have the right owners and therefore do not deserve to be better protected.

There is something else that we need to consider. The provisions in Bill C-35 are not any different from the sentences and fines already provided for in the Criminal Code. On reading Bill C-35, we see that the provisions it contains, such as the sentence for animal cruelty, are in line with existing provisions. Is this not actually a false problem of our judges being soft on crime, as I explained on two previous occasions? Moreover, the bill offers a false solution because it in no way amends the existing provisions. Could it get any worse? The bill addresses a false problem and offers a false solution. Questions need to be raised and put to competent people in committee.

People need to ask themselves why such a muddled and rigged piece of legislation was introduced in the House in the first place. Unfortunately, I have come to the following conclusion. As one of my Quebec colleagues mentioned at the outset of the debate, this is an attempt to target a specific group of people. I can only imagine that a Conservative Party strategist somewhere in the Prime Minister’s Office claimed a riding was lost by a mere 35 votes. In that particular riding there are 25 owners of RCMP service dogs, each with a wife and three children. Maybe they think that if they manage to get this bill passed, they will win the next time around. That may seem somewhat far-fetched, but knowing how obsessed this government is with databases and the potential to manipulate the vote, I cannot help but believe that similar thinking is behind bills as incongruous as this one.

[An hon. member]

Anything is possible.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, nothing is impossible. Even though the bill that has been introduced resembles a parliamentary farce imposed by the current government, the NDP must still help preserve a modicum of respect for the institutions of Parliament, as I mentioned previously. We will do our job in committee and study the bill before it goes to third reading. We will ask experts to appear so that we can ask them fundamental questions. For example, why remove discretionary authority once again from the courts, as has been done in several other government bills? Why do that again? Have the Conservatives examined the impact of introducing minimum and consecutive sentences on the justice and prison systems? Once again, why do that? Did the government avoid consulting the provinces?

People at home need to fully understand what is going on. When individuals get a six-month sentence, they are placed in the provincial prison system. Two years ago, a number of provincial legislatures sounded the alarm and wondered why the federal government is making these decisions without consultation. If we do not ask ourselves the question, the number of people in provincial penitentiaries will rise by 10%, 15%, 20% or 30%. This is what we call “offloading to the provinces”. In the bill, could a minimum sentence violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Did the government seek legal advice on this? These are not minor questions.

Canadians can have faith in us; we will do our job in committee. We will invite competent individuals to testify, people who have decades of experience with these legislative matters. They will be able to answer our questions. We will be able to see whether the version of the bill at third reading can be supported. Despite the government's bad faith, we will do our job as parliamentarians.

The House resumed from June 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-35, known as Quanto's law.

I realize that the primary focus of the bill is on law enforcement animals and this is entirely appropriate, given the heightened risk that these animals face in the course of assisting the police and other law enforcement officers in dealing with the criminal element. Certainly, they deserve our respect and the greatest protection that the legislation promises.

It is important that we not overlook the fact that the legislation would also provide a greater measure of protection to service animals. Service animals are animals that have been trained for tasks that assist people with disabilities. Service animals are not considered pets. Most service animals are dogs, and most of us are familiar with the role that guide dogs play in helping men and women who are blind, have low vision or who want greater mobility to achieve independence and freedom.

Socialization and training of service dogs starts at a very young age. Foster parents teach the puppies basic obedience, house manners and socialization to different environments. This helps the puppies become well-adjusted with different situations, experiences and people. These are skills that the dogs would benefit from when they are later assigned to provide future assistance to their owner with a disability.

Although assistance dogs have traditionally helped people with disabilities, such as blindness or, more recently, deafness or mobility disabilities, there is a wide range of other disabilities that an assistance dog may help with, as well, including psychiatric disabilities. A psychiatric service dog is a specific type of service dog trained to assist its handler with psychiatric disabilities, such as post-traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia.

Like all assistance dogs, a psychiatric service dog is individually trained to do work or perform tasks that mitigate the handler's disability. Training to mitigate a psychiatric disability may include: providing environmental assessments, in cases such as paranoia and hallucinations; signalling behaviours, such as interrupting repetitive or injurious behaviours; reminding the handler to take medication; retrieving objects; guiding the handler from stressful situations; or acting as a brace if the handler becomes dizzy.

I note that the bill's proposed definition of service animal requires the animal be certified, in writing, as having been trained by a professional service animal institution to assist a person with a disability. In this respect, the bill is consistent with Part VII of the Canadian air transportation regulations.

Responding to concerns about how to make air travel as accessible as possible for passengers with disabilities, while at the same time respecting necessary measures to protect the collective safety of all passengers and crews, Part VII of the Canadian air transportation regulations requires airlines engaging in domestic airline operations, using an airplane with 30 or more passenger seats, to permit service animals used by individuals with a disability to accompany the person on a flight. The animal must be properly harnessed in accordance with standards established by a professional service animal institution.

However, the air transportation regulations require that the service animal be certified, in writing, by a professional service animal institution as having been trained to assist a person.

The bill has taken a similar approach in requiring the certification of the service animal. For example, the Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind issues an identification card, certifying that both the dog and the passenger, with the disability, have each completed the training provided by the organization.

Most service animal institutions provide an ID card, but some may provide a certificate, a licence, or identification papers, confirming that the service animal has completed the required training.

Air Canada allows certified, professionally trained service animals that are assisting customers with disabilities to be carried free of charge in the passenger cabin, at the customer's feet. The animal must be harnessed, and certified as having been trained to assist a person with a disability by a professional service animal institution.

Air Transat's policy is similar. When accompanied by certification and documentation and travelling with a person with a disability, certified service dogs are welcome in the passenger cabin of its aircraft.

This requirement for certification is entirely appropriate.

Certification entails training at an approved training facility in accordance with set standards. For example, in British Columbia, to receive a guide animal certificate, dogs are the only type of animal that can be certified. The guide/service dog must be trained by a training facility that has been approved by the B.C. minister of justice. This includes all dogs accredited by Assistance Dogs International or the International Guide Dog Federation. The B.C. minister of justice has also approved a number of other schools that train to the same standard. Upon successful completion of the program, the training facility provides a graduation certificate.

Once a dog is certified, a disabled person who is accompanied by a certified guide or service dog has the same rights, privileges, and obligations as a person who is not accompanied by a dog. Specifically, they may enter and use any accommodation, public transportation, eating place, lodging place, or any other place to which the public is invited.

Bill C-35 would require that the special role played by law enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals is specifically recognized by criminal law.

I want to carry on with something that is a little more familiar to me, and that is the service dogs that we saw in this place yesterday, the service dogs that are utilized by the RCMP, the OPP, and the Ottawa Police Service. These are the service dogs we are most accustomed to when we hear about these types of things. I want to zero in on the RCMP service dogs specifically, which I am more familiar with.

RCMP service dogs were established in 1935 by then commissioner MacBrien. He recognized that the dogs that had been utilized since 1908 in a volunteer capacity had such an immense opportunity to be utilized by police that he enacted, in 1937, an RCMP training school for police handling dogs. In 1940, the RCMP won its first case in Canada involving a dog search.

Within a very short period of time, service dogs were created with the RCMP in mind, and other police forces across Canada. They became invaluable.

In 1965, the RCMP dog services moved from Calgary to Innisfail, Alberta, where they are today. Every RCMP dog in Canada is trained at Innisfail. It is commanded by one officer in charge, ten non-commissioned officers, and six public staff members.

Police service dogs, as we saw here in this place yesterday, can be utilized for a lot of other opportunities, such as missing persons, tracking persons, finding narcotics, finding explosives, and crime scene evidence. They can track evidence that has been dumped by a person whom the police believe has done a crime. They are used for VIP protection. We will see police dogs on the Hill when an important person is visiting the Prime Minister. They are used for crowd control and in hostage situations. Most important, as I mentioned, they were utilized a lot yesterday. We may not have seen them, but they were here. These dogs are why Bill C-35 must pass through the House quickly.

I want to remind the House of a few incidents in Canada's history with regard to police service dogs. I will go back in time a bit so members can understand where we are today.

On May 25, 1965, the first police service dog was killed. PSD Cindy was stationed in Crescent Valley, British Columbia. She was dispatched with her handler to a situation with a barricaded person. The dog attempted an apprehension but was stabbed to death. However, as a result of the dog making the initial attack on that person, it saved two lives. It saved the handler's life and that of another investigator.

Then, on December 18, 1967, Vancouver Police Department's service dog Valiant was murdered. He was attempting to apprehend an escaped convict who was serving time for murder. He was sent into the location, located the suspect under a bed, and was shot. The dog continued to guard the suspect until the suspect was taken into custody.

One must remember when it comes to Bill C-35 and what we are trying to introduce with respect to police service dogs being harmed in action, that these dogs are unrelenting in their job. They will protect their handler at all costs. They will protect any person they are charged to protect, at all costs.

The next police service dog that was killed in action was on August 31, 1975. He was an Ontario Provincial Police dog, PSD Cloud II. Again, the dog was searching for a murder suspect. He tracked and apprehended the suspect, but the suspect had a gun and shot the police service dog.

Coming back to Bill C-35, here is what is important. In this specific case, there were no charges laid for killing the dog. There were no charges whatsoever. The importance of Bill C-35 is in recognizing that these dogs are not normal dogs that people have in their homes. These dogs have a role to play in society. They are here to protect us. They understand that their job is to do what we may not be able to do sometimes. We have a very difficult time in tracking, and doing a lot of things that dogs are more than capable of doing.

On May 11, 1976, Vancouver police dog, PSD Justin, was shot at. The dog had apprehended a suspect but was subsequently stabbed several times. The dog was able to continue holding the suspect until his handler and other investigators were able to apprehend. The dog passed away several minutes later.

Again, it shows the importance of Bill C-35 in recognizing that these dogs are invaluable. They were brought forth about 80 years ago by the RCMP, and many years before that by other police forces. We recognize the important and valuable contribution that they give to not only police officers but to other Canadians across this land in other types of scenarios.

The next dog to be killed was in Chilliwack, on September 13, 1996. It was again with respect to a person search. The person ran into the bush, after what I will call a gas and dash and failing to stop for the police. The dog picked up the scent of the suspect and went into the bush. He was able to apprehend the suspect, but unfortunately was stabbed several times.

As I have mentioned many times, the dog is the lead in these types of investigations. The handlers have the utmost trust in their dogs, and the dogs have the utmost trust in their handlers. Bill C-35 recognizes this importance.

The next police service dog to be killed in action was PSD Caesar, of the Edmonton City police force, on June 23, 1998. There was an armed standoff and the dog was utilized to attack the assailant. The dog was shot point-blank and died almost immediately. However, that gave the police enough time to apprehend the suspect, and no other officers were injured.

The next police service dog was PSD Bandit, on June 25, 2000, in Nova Scotia. The police service dog was tracking a suspect who had been involved in a domestic dispute. He was able to track and find the suspect. Unfortunately, the suspect had a knife and stabbed the dog several times. The dog passed away, but the handler and other investigators were able to apprehend the suspect without further incident.

On May 20, 2001, RCMP PSD Cyr, in Saskatoon, was sent in to apprehend an armed suspect and was shot three times.

Members can see where I am going with this. The dogs are vitally important to the police from coast to coast to coast, with respect to tracking, finding, and apprehending suspects. However, from time to time they unfortunately pay the ultimate price, a price which tends to be forgotten when it is a police service animal.

There are several other incidents of police service dogs dying, but the last one I will talk about is the one mentioned in this specific bill, Bill C-35. Quanto was a police service dog for the Edmonton Police Service. He was attempting to apprehend a person who had stolen a car. The police located the suspect, but Quanto was stabbed several times and succumbed to his injuries. However, the police were able to apprehend the suspect.

In every one of these instances, the police service dogs instinctively protected their handlers and put their lives in front of their human counterparts'. Police service dogs are the epitome of man's best friend. Under command, or sometimes instinctively, they will protect their handler at all costs. As I have illustrated many times, they will fight and sacrifice themselves before they allow their handler to be put into harm's way. Bill C-35 pays tribute to these animals. It recognizes that if a person does harm to an animal there will be consequences, as there should be.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to rise in the House and ask a question after yesterday's tragic events. I realize that this is a privilege that is fundamental in our society.

I thank all of my constituents who contacted my offices to make sure that I was okay and that my staff was safe.

It is the first opportunity I have had to rise in this chamber after the tragic events of yesterday, and I do it with a heavy heart but at the same time with tremendous pride in our democracy. I would like to thank my constituents who contacted me. So many of them contacted me to see whether I was safe and my staff was safe.

I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I must say that I do not object to the basic principle of this bill, which is to protect service animals. However, I am wondering why this bill would take away discretionary powers. Why would this government and the member who spoke not have faith in our judges? Why could a judge not protect law enforcement service animals?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I illustrated in my speech several times where police service dogs were murdered, and I will call it murder, and no charges were ever laid as a result of the investigation. There were a lot of other parts of the investigation where charges were laid, but it seems that the dog was just left behind, and that should never be. The dogs are actual members of a police force, and they should be recognized that way.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his intervention, and I would like to recognize the hard-working member for Richmond Hill who brought this piece of legislation through his hard work and the recognition of service animals in his riding and across this country. There have been two gentlemen here who have put a lot of great work into getting this bill this far along.

While my honourable colleague articulated well the determination and loyalty of not just police service animals but of all service animals to the people who rely on them heavily, the one thing that is also an important factor is the investment in the animals. My hon. colleague mentioned the certification that is required. I am wondering if the member could talk about, from his experience and knowledge of this file, the costs and what it takes to get a service dog from puppy to fully functioning, capable, certified animal. What kind of investment does that represent for organizations and people and the individuals who rely on them? Could he comment on what the loss is when the animals are injured or killed and taken out of service? Beyond the emotional loss people face, what are the monetary impacts?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to give members an understanding of how this works, in most cases the handlers starts the dogs right from pups, from about eight to twelve weeks. They start working and progress to where they can get to a facility such as Innisfail.

The cost to train a dog and get it to the point where it is a police service dog is approximately $60,000. It is a significant investment that is made to ensure that the dog is trained to the ability it is going to be working with. That does not include the ongoing maintenance for the dog and the handler who does daily training. In most cases, the handler takes two to four hours of training with the dog every day to ensure that its abilities stay at a peak level and the handler's abilities stay at a peak level.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the government member who just spoke to Bill C-35.

After yesterday's events, this bill seems very appropriate, since it deals with safety and with services provided by law enforcement animals.

The government often updates the projected order of business, as it has done in this case, so that we could study Bill C-35, which we support.

However, I do not understand why more government members will not speak to this bill. If it is on the agenda, it must be important to the government. However, from what I can tell, few government members will speak to this bill.

Could my colleague tell me why?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I guess my simple answer to that would be that there are a number of us on this side who can speak quite eloquently to the subject of Bill C-35, with the number of police officers we have on this side of the House.

I would suggest that I probably have some of the most knowledge on the bill, and I believe I could speak for everyone on this side, for as long as I wanted, on the topic of Bill C-35.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very informative speech. My question is this: What would be an amendment or procedure to add to the bill so that if a person destroyed a dog with a knife, a gun, or whatever, that person would be financially responsible for paying for the life of that dog? I wonder if that is a feasible proposition.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, through the court process, there are restitution orders that can be applied for. As with any restitution orders that come forward, I would strongly suggest that they could be in place with regard to this without an amendment to the bill.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia for his speech.

I find a number of aspects of Bill C-35 very disturbing, including the mandatory minimum sentences.

The hon. member probably knows—if not, I will tell him—that the Department of Justice considers mandatory minimum sentences to have no demonstrable deterrent effect.

Considering the long list of cases of assault against service dogs that he presented, why is he defending the mandatory minimum sentence aspect of the bill, when it will have no effect on preventing attacks on service animals?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned several times in my speech police service animals that have been murdered since 1965. On very few occasions, if any, was there a charge laid with regard to the actual killing of the animal. It has always been a subsequent charge to whatever the police were investigating, but it had nothing to do with the animal itself.

The fact of the matter is that this is a murder of a police service dog that has been a huge investment and that is very near and dear to the handler. It takes a long time to replace the animal. I strongly believe that there must be a mandatory minimum sentence.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the bill. I should inform you and this House that I will be splitting my time with the fantastic member for Churchill.

Before I begin, it is incumbent upon all of us to start off by thanking the men and women in uniform who were so valiant yesterday. The terms “duty” and “valour” together were resonant for us, especially where we and many MPs were situated. To see one security guard in our caucus room standing between us and the horror that was outside is an image that is burned in my mind. I know I can speak for all MPs, but specifically for those of us who were in that room at that time, in saying that we will be forever grateful to that security guard. With that, I pay my respects and offer him a huge thanks from all of us on this side.

In many of the scenes in news clippings and news footage from yesterday's horrific incident, we saw police dogs, service dogs. It is fitting today that we are able to talk about Bill C-35, an act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals). It is a fitting opportunity for us to think about the officers who work with these fine animals.

We heard a great speech from my hon. colleague from Kootenay—Columbia. I think it is important for us to talk about this today.

When I talked about the title of the bill, I mentioned that it is also called “Quanto's law”, in memory of an Edmonton police service dog that was stabbed to death trying to stop a suspect who was fleeing. It was last year at about this time. The perpetrator pleaded guilty to animal cruelty and other offences, including evading the police, and he was sentenced to 26 months in prison and banned from owning a pet for 25 years.

It is incumbent upon us to ensure that we find ways to protect these service animals. It is important for us to support the bill and get it to committee. Part of the bill talks about mandatory minimum sentences and minimum sentences in general. It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to ensure that every bill we look at has the opportunity to go to committee and that we bring forward stakeholders and experts to talk about the importance of making sure that the laws being presented by the government are meeting societal values and are protecting animals and people.

When we talk about animal cruelty, especially when we think about what happened to Quanto in Edmonton, it brings together the picture of protecting all animals. I can think of an incident in Sudbury when the community rallied around a dog we called Buddy when he was shot in the face by his owner and left to die on the side of the road. He was found by some great people and taken to a vet's emergency clinic, where he had surgery. The community rallied around Buddy the dog and raised enough money to pay the vet bills, but unfortunately, Buddy died a couple of days later.

While we are here talking about service dogs, we also need to consider the importance of animal cruelty. The things that happened to Buddy the dog should not go unpunished.

In looking at some of the other police service dogs over the last little bit, I talked about Quanto. The RCMP unveiled a monument to Quanto, which is something that I think is quite important. Recently, in the Northwest Territories, we have seen a dog help RCMP officers when they responded to an armed and barricaded adult male in a house. The individual was arrested five hours later without incident. The RCMP used its emergency response team, crisis negotiation team and a police dog in the arrest. Again, a police dog is playing an important role in the police force.

However, we also have to talk about service dogs in general, because the bill includes them. In my previous employment before being elected here, I had the opportunity of doing a couple of jobs in which I was able to work with animals. In the first job, I was a supervisor for residential homes for individuals with developmental handicaps, and there were many dogs being utilized by these individuals to help them with their day-to-day lives.

I would like to focus specifically on the service dogs that are now being trained to work with individuals with autism.

We have been seeing the prevalence of autism increase across the country. There are more individuals living their day-to-day lives with autism. However, there is now evidence showing that these service dogs for individuals with autism are helping, children specifically, with social interaction, relationships and the expansion of verbal and non-verbal communication skills. They are teaching them life skills, increasing their interest in activities and decreasing their stress.

If any of us in this House have ever worked with an individual with autism, know or have someone in their family with autism, they would know that many of the skills I mentioned previously come difficult for some. To ensure they can live active participatory lives within the community, it is fantastic to hear that we can provide them with a service dog so that they can become more independent, which is something that I think we all want in this House.

From coast to coast to coast across our great land, from British Columbia to St. John's, Newfoundland, we would like to make sure that these animals are protected, because they are aiding some of our most vulnerable citizens, taking them out of the category of being vulnerable and making them more independent.

I was also the executive director of the United Way right before I was elected. I was able to work closely with the CNIB, who obviously have service dogs for individuals who are visually impaired. The St. John Ambulance program in Sudbury has service animals who are certified therapy dogs, and we are talking about certified animals being protected in this bill. These dogs provide therapy to seniors and individuals going through difficult times, such as post-traumatic stress disorder.

I am very happy to stand today to speak to the bill and talk about the importance of it. I am glad I have been able to speak about sending the bill to committee where we can really look at some of the provisions that the government has put in and make sure that it is the right thing to do, and that, I think, is important.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was indeed a very different day for all of us here. It was a stark reminder that we do live in troubled times. At the same time, it afforded us an opportunity to perhaps reflect and it reminded all of us that we have a lot more things common in this House, as parliamentarians, than we might sometimes think. I want to join my colleagues on all sides of the House in expressing my appreciation and gratitude to the law enforcement officers, under the guidance and leadership of our Sergeant-at-Arms, for their heroic efforts yesterday in ensuring all of our safety, so a big thanks to all of them.

I want to thank my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Sudbury, for his speech on this particular piece of legislation that seeks to protect police service animals and service animals in general. I have a simple question to ask the hon. member, and I appreciate his indication of support for the bill.

With his experience in the United Way and in his previous life, and the knowledge that he has had over his lifetime, could he share with us his sentiments on the importance of this legislation to police services across the country that have canine units and horse units, as well as to the families that are availing themselves of the services of these selfless animals, which are at their service every day?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first in response to the parliamentary secretary's comments, I do agree. In this House we have a lot more commonalities than we might think some days. While we may be on this side and they are on that side, we still walk out the same door every day and we still try to make our communities a better place, no matter which side of the House we sit on.

In relation to seeing what I have seen, I am going to use a very specific story. I have seen a young boy who had autism who had some very difficult times in his life and, not to spill too many beans because it is very personal for that person, was not able to really be functional in the community. Over a couple of years of having his dog—his friend and his mate as he calls him—the young boy is now going to school on his own with the dog. The school has had to make some accommodations, but it has and his life is completely changed. This dog is his life companion and he has made so many strides because of the importance of this dog, that we as parliamentarians should be able to do something to help these animals as well.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Sudbury.

He told us about the mission of service animals, particularly for autistic children and young adults. I would like him to expand on that. Could he explain how it all helps the community in general?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it helps the community by giving more independence and more community involvement to individuals who sometimes have been marginalized. In this day and age, when we can do anything to ensure that individuals who have a diagnosis of some sort are no longer marginalized, if it is giving them a dog, ensuring they have the services they need, ensuring they get the funding that they need, then we as parliamentarians need to start looking at doing that.

However, when it comes to the specific use of service animals, we have seen numerous cases of individuals having their lives changed. Individuals who go from having vision and sight to losing their vision and becoming blind or having a visual impairment, they get their dog and they get their freedom and their life back, as they say. They can get back out in the community, get back on public transit, get out and do grocery shopping, things that we overlook and sometimes take for granted.

As I said, I am so pleased to see individuals with autism now making huge strides because of the support they are getting from service animals.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to follow my esteemed colleague from Sudbury. In his speech, he relayed our party's position on Bill C-35, which, as we know, is an act to amend the Criminal Code referring to law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals.

New Democrats have made it clear that we support the bill at second reading and believe that it should be studied at committee. We want to study the bill more closely in committee so we can hear from experts on two problematic clauses, the introduction of minimum sentences and the introduction of consecutive sentences. We know that, concretely, the bill would amend section 445 of the Criminal Code and create a new offence for killing or injuring a service animal, law enforcement animal or military animal while the animal is on duty. It would also set a minimum sentence of six months if a law enforcement animal is killed while the offence is being perpetrated. Finally, it would provide for the sentences imposed on a person to be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

As we have pointed out, there is no disagreement about the need to support the work of our security personnel and to ensure the safety and humane treatment of the dogs that they depend on. In fact, the tragic events of yesterday reminded us how important it is to have every tool at one's disposal to ensure safety. This morning I noticed one of the service dogs with an officer, making sure that we in Parliament are safe.

I, like my colleagues, share the sentiment that we are very appreciative of the brave women and men of the police forces, the Canadian Forces, and the House of Commons security who did everything they could to keep us safe yesterday and are doing so today, and often, as we saw yesterday, at great risk to themselves.

Getting back to the bill, New Democrats are concerned that, once again, the devil is in the details. This is a laudable bill that has been tainted by the introduction of minimum sentencing, which clearly reflects the continued repressive agenda that the government has been bringing forward. The government is also showing its desire to deprive the courts of their discretion in sentencing. We believe that the Conservatives should be more aware of the consequences of minimum and consecutive sentencing for the criminal justice system and that it is important the bill go to committee because we need to hear from experts about the consequences of minimum and consecutive sentencing.

We know that Bill C-35, also referred to as Quanto's law, is in memory of an Edmonton police service dog that was stabbed to death trying to stop a fleeing suspect in October 2013. While we believe it is important that penalties exist for those who attack law enforcement animals, we are concerned that this is a back door attempt by the government to once again bring in minimum sentencing, which we have seen over and over again in various pieces of legislation.

Sadly, we see today in this bill and have seen in other bills, such as the Internet privacy bill, which hinge on a particular traumatic event, whether it is the suicide of young women who were bullied or in this case an enforcement animal that was killed on the job, that it is a way to get to that issue, but to do so in the most regressive way by emphasizing the importance of mandatory minimum sentencing and once again depriving the courts of their ability to apply discretion.

I am particularly concerned that with such traumatic events, the government tries to portray that it is the only one that cares about it and anyone who expresses concern, has questions or critiques the bill is automatically on the wrong side of the debate. I share that concern when it comes to the way we are going to deal with yesterday's tragedy.

I am very proud that today in the House we all rose to show solidarity with each other and with Canadians, but I am concerned about the potential for division based on legitimate disagreements around principles—legitimate disagreements that are integral to our democracy—and the possible vilification of those who do not agree with the government's agenda.

In this case I, along with my colleagues, firmly believe it is important to bring Bill C-35 to committee to have a vibrant debate on it, to hear from experts, and to look at how we can eliminate the most regressive elements of this bill, elements that have little to do with preventing the senseless deaths of law enforcement animals and more to do with padding the Conservative crime and punishment agenda.

I would be remiss if I did not express an additional concern.

There is much interest in seeing this bill go forward, and we have also indicated our support for it, but it is interesting to me that so many members on the government side are so passionate about this issue. Granted, it is a serious issue, and I hear the references to animal cruelty, a very serious and tragic practice that still exists in our country and something that we must eradicate, but it strikes me that sometimes we do not hear that same kind of gusto or drive from the government side to deal with other aspects of disrespectful and even, I would say, neglectful treatment of humans in our own country.

I am reminded of that this week as the human rights tribunal hears from indigenous community members and indigenous leaders about the cruel conditions in which first nations youth live. These conditions unfortunately point to neglect by the federal government and point to the way in which the federal government has let go of its fiduciary obligation to the well-being, health, education, and overall wellness of first nations youth. Instead it continues with an agenda and rhetoric that amount to status quo. The government says it is doing everything it can, that it has done more than other governments have, but that is not a good enough excuse.

As an MP who represents a part of this country where we have high rates of poverty, particularly child poverty and poverty among first nations youth, I am used to visiting communities where I see kids who are not dressed for cold weather, who go to school hungry, who live in mould-infested homes with 12 or 15 other relatives. I am always struck by the fact that it is unacceptable in Canada, in the year 2014, that children of any background have to live like that. It is not of their own volition or of their own choice that these children live in some cruel conditions, but as a result of a very dark history of systemic policies.

While we sit here and talk about the importance of respect and protection for law enforcement animals, I would also like to see that same kind of commitment and interest, both in messaging and in action, for humans, particularly for children in our society, our most vulnerable citizens.

I believe that is why we are here. We are here to make the right decisions. Whether in terms of our security forces or our communities, Canadians expect that kind of leadership from all of us.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and again congratulate the hon. member for Churchill for her speech, which explained the connection between some very important aspects that she mentioned.

In addition, she always defends the most vulnerable residents in her riding, and does so fairly and appropriately. I highly commend her for defending them. We sometimes seem to forget what is going on in our own country, and we shut our eyes from time to time.

Would my colleague like to say more about the government's heavy-handed tendency to take away the discretion of judges, and how that tendency is often seen in the bills introduced by this government?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comment. The point she made is at the core of our analysis here in this House.

We know it, and young people learn it in school: judicial independence is part of the foundation of our country, our governance and our democracy. We in the NDP are very concerned that the government takes every opportunity to undermine this independence and to interfere with our judges. That is unacceptable.

We have expressed this concern many times and we are doing so again today. We hope that we will be able to eliminate these most problematic aspects of the bill in committee.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Churchill for her excellent speech.

I would like to talk about a corollary. On this side of the House, members have introduced bills to toughen animal cruelty laws. We are not talking specifically about service animals such as law enforcement animals, but all animals, be they pets or the animals around us in the waters and elsewhere. My colleague from Parkdale—High Park introduced such a bill.

I would like to hear what the member for Churchill has to say about the dedication and commitment of the official opposition to adopting tougher animal cruelty measures.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that important question.

I also want to commend our colleague, the member for Parkdale—High Park, who introduced a bill on animal cruelty. This is proof of our initiative and our leadership on this issue. My colleague has been involved in this for years.

We support the idea behind this bill, but we have some serious concerns about some flaws in the bill that have nothing to do with its objective.

We hope that Conservative members in committee will have the goodwill to make improvements, in order to protect animals and to avoid undermining our judges and our judicial system.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by indicating I will be splitting my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

As with all my other colleagues, it is my pleasure to rise today and have the privilege of being able to speak on a day such as this after the tragic events of yesterday. I have had a chance outside of this chamber to express my appreciation to the Security Services of the House of Commons and Constable Samearn Son, who suffered a wound trying to stop the attacker from entering this honourable place, and especially Sergeant-at-Arms Vickers, who ended the threat.

I would also say that on a day like today after a day like yesterday, given the subject of Bill C-35, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to law enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals, that my mind is drawn to a monument not far from where Corporal Cirillo was murdered.

Just a little farther down Elgin Street and to the left is Confederation Park, where the Animals in War monument has been in place since 2012. It is a very poignant monument. It shows a German Shepherd dog from World War I with a cape that contains various items that the war dog was assisting a soldier in carrying. There is a picture taken on the day of dedication showing RCMP Corporal Luc Patenaude and his own police dog, Cujo, standing alongside the war dog monument.

I would like to read the Animals in War plaque, which is highly relevant to the whole idea of sacrifice that we were reminded of yesterday—the theme of sacrifice, and ultimately the fundamental humanity of a relationship with animals that the member for Kootenay—Columbia so eloquently spoke of.

The plaque says the following:

For centuries animals have demonstrated an enduring partnership with humans during times of war. They have served as means of transportation, beasts of burden, messengers, protectors and mascots. Still today, dogs use their unique, sharply tuned instincts to detect mine clusters, and conduct search and rescue operations. We remember the contribution and sacrifice of all animals.

It is a marvellously done monument and it helps remind us of this connection between animals and ourselves. The way we treat animals in our society is also a measure of our own humanity. Sadly, I believe our criminal laws, not to mention provincial laws across this country, are sadly lagging behind other jurisdictions.

I am proud and happy to say that I count an animal literally as a member of my family. That is the way I think of it with respect to my mini-schnauzer. I personally believe that animals' presence in our lives humanizes our existence. We can think of some of the examples from my colleague from Sudbury and the detailed stories from the member for Kootenay—Columbia about the particular importance of animals in the police services, but we can also think of animal therapy in seniors homes, hospitals, and so on, which increasingly is being recognized as part of advanced cutting-edge therapy going back to basics being part of the future.

I was touched by how the member for Kootenay—Columbia spoke. He used the word “murder”. He emphasized that a couple of times in his speech and then in his answers to questions. He wants us to not think of this as just the killing of an animal or the death of an animal, but its murder. We do not use that language unless we are talking about a profound relationship in which partnership, friendship, and even a familial bond is part of how we think about the loss of that animal.

From my perspective, I think the member hit the nail exactly on the head. This is exactly how we should be thinking of animals in the professions he listed: enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals.

We also have to remember that, in certain contexts—war dogs being one example, but police dogs in particular—it is not just that they are partners. If we were honest with ourselves, we would say the form of service they represent is sacrificial. They are deployed in circumstances that can lead to their being more likely to suffer harm, if not be killed, than their partner or handler. Therefore, the idea of something extra being owed to these animals is something I have absolutely no problem with.

However, the understanding behind this bill cannot stop at the gates of these particular animals. If we push further on exactly what is motivating the extra protection for these animals in the circumstances in which they can be hurt or killed, we would find ourselves thinking about animal rights in a very different way, across the board. We would be thinking about cruelty to animals in Canada in a broader frame.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, as Deputy Speaker, that you introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-414, which has now been taken up by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. You tabled that bill on the very day that I was sworn into this House, and it was my distinct pleasure to second that bill.

For the benefit of everyone in the House, I would like to quote the words you said when introducing it. You stated:

The bill would do two basic things. It first recognizes that animals are sentient beings as opposed to a piece of wood or a piece of furniture, which is the way the Criminal Code currently treats them. The other thing that it would do has a very clear consequence. The number of convictions for animal cruelty would increase dramatically under the Criminal Code. We have estimates that only one in a thousand cases of animal cruelty can result in convictions under the Criminal Code, and this would address that issue.

The bill I referred to, which is now being taken up by what is currently Bill C-592, is part of an NDP commitment as a strong advocate for ending all levels of cruelty to animals, including such things as forced breeding. This can only be accomplished by repealing old sections of the Criminal Code dealing with animal cruelty and proposing newer and tougher laws to protect animals. I believe that it cannot be done only on a piecemeal basis. Rather, it has to be done by government legislation to create a proper overhaul. Although this bill is a government bill, it is in the mode of piecemeal legislation. I would very much urge the government to think about the potential for this bill to be the start of something that is more of an overhaul, that looks at the picture from a more general perspective than simply this deserving case of service, police enforcement, and military animals.

With that, I would like to emphasize that the bill has my full support to go to committee. I believe my colleagues have the same view on that. However, I would urge the movers of the bill, my colleagues from Richmond Hill and Kootenay, who have taken the lead on it, to ask whether or not the elements of mandatory minimums and necessary mandatory consequential sentencing are really needed for what they are trying to do. They have the support of this side of the House. The key is to actually criminalize in a way that cannot be avoided, from a prosecution point of view, and to make sure the ability to prosecute in the right circumstances is there. The idea of taking discretionary judgment away from judges when it comes to sentences seems to me to be an entirely different issue from what ultimately was motivating my colleague across the way in his speech. It is simply not necessary for what he is trying to achieve.

The last thing is that this is a bill that, yet again, because it has mandatory minimums, will raise issues around constitutionality. It once again reminds us that we have bills coming before this House for which we have to rely on the competence and good faith of the Minister of Justice to have vetted the bill to make sure it meets the current constitutional standards for sentencing. I can never be convinced that is the case, because we never see the legal opinions.

Once again, this is the third time in two weeks I have asked the government to consider, at committee, introducing the legal opinion that was given to make sure this particular mandatory minimum would not offend the charter.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Toronto—Danforth for his excellent speech.

I know that he is very concerned about the idea of mandatory minimums. I would like to know what he thinks about the fundamental issue of mandatory minimums. In 2012, the Ontario Superior Court invalidated some provisions regarding mandatory minimums in the case of two sentences for firearms possession. The Canadian government will in all likelihood go to the Supreme Court to defend its version of the facts.

Nonetheless, the Superior Court of Ontario, the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec all believe that mandatory minimums could well be unconstitutional. This is an argument that came up in committee when Bill C-10 was being studied.

I would like to know what the member thinks about the Superior Court of Ontario's ruling and about the constitutionality of mandatory minimums, as proposed in this bill.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

It was not just one ruling. In fact, there were others before it, and perhaps one or two that also found that the mandatory minimum sentences violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is really a question of proportionality and the fact that the sentence must actually fit the crime. Mandatory minimum sentences do not normally cause problems, in that they are rather weak sentences imposed by the judges. Nonetheless, there are times when the mandatory minimum sentence is really not suited to the crime that the person committed.

That is what the Supreme Court and other courts are essentially concerned about when it comes to constitutionality.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will move on to something else that is still related to this issue. I asked the hon. member for Churchill a question. I would also like to have that member's opinion about the will of this side of the House to impose harsher sentences in cases of animal cruelty.

This bill deals specifically with law enforcement animals or other service animals. I think we on this side of the House have shown that we have no objection to the basic philosophy underlying this government bill, as was clearly shown by the introduction of Bill C-232 by our colleague from Parkdale—High Park.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on how this side of the House feels about the philosophy behind this government bill.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely as my colleague from Churchill said: we have no problem with the underlying principle or motivation behind this bill.

What I was trying to say at the end of my speech is that mandatory minimum sentences do not need to be in this bill. We support the idea of penalties for the offences set out in the bill, but mandatory minimum sentences do not need to be added to achieve the objective at the core of the speech made by the member for Kootenay—Columbia.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to rise in this House. In fact, like a number of my colleagues, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to do so since yesterday's incidents. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sergeant-at-Arms Vickers, of course, but also the House of Commons security services. They did an outstanding job, just like the police forces who came to the rescue and backed up Parliament's security officers.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my staff. We are talking about MPs and parliamentary employees who were directly affected by the incidents, but there are also many offices around Parliament, around Parliament Hill, occupied by those close to us, including our office staff and the people in the clerk's office. Those people were also affected, and I would like to thank them for all their work and congratulate them on their exemplary conduct during that difficult time.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of my riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for the support they showed me by sending me messages at my office or on social media. I greatly appreciated it, and I would like to thank them for their prayers and support.

I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-35, which amends the Criminal Code with regard to law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals, for example animals for the blind. As many of my colleagues mentioned, we are going to support this bill at second reading because we support the basic principle of the bill. We hope that it will be carefully studied in committee. However, we hope that the committee will pay special attention to one particular aspect of the bill, and that is the mandatory minimum sentencing. This has been been discussed in the House quite often, and it will be the focus of my speech today.

The bill imposes mandatory minimum sentencing. It seeks to amend section 445 of the Criminal Code and impose a minimum sentence of six months if a law enforcement animal is killed when a crime is committed.

The creation of an offence for injuring or killing these animals as they perform their duties is a commendable goal. There are already provisions in the Criminal Code related to cruelty to animals. We also want to strengthen those provisions, but the government is taking advantage of a measure that seems acceptable to most, if not all, members of the House—I believe—to once again impose mandatory minimum sentencing.

That is a serious problem. Since 2008, this government has been imposing minimum sentences. However, minimum sentences do not reduce the likelihood that a crime will be committed. That has been shown time and time again. No credible scientific or sociological studies have proven the contrary. The government does not rely on studies that show the impact of imposing such a measure when passing or proposing potentially acceptable or effective bills. In my opinion, the government imposes these sentences because of its ideology. If these sentences are not based on science or demonstrable facts, I do not believe there is any other explanation for the government's actions, and I find that really unfortunate.

In the question I asked my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, one of the things I mentioned was one of the most recent cases handled by a provincial court. In two cases involving two provisions related to weapon possession, the minimum sentence was overturned by the Ontario Superior Court because it was cruel and unusual punishment and not in line with the offence. That is nothing new. It has been mentioned many, many times by extremely respectable law organizations, including the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec. Those are just two of the many associations and organizations that have told us exactly the same thing.

It comes as no surprise that the provincial courts are overturning federal proposals and legislation. In fact, we had already been warned in Parliament, in the House of Commons and during committee work, that this provision on mandatory minimum sentences would have this exact outcome.

The government obviously passed this measure, among others, for weapon possession. Quite recently, the government even capped it all off with the law and order omnibus bill, the bill to amend the Criminal Code, by sprinkling minimum sentences throughout Bill C-10, particularly for offences related to drugs, possession and possession with intent to traffic. No matter what offence the government's legislation targets, the reasoning is the same. The possibility of committing a crime is not reduced because a mandatory minimum sentence exists, because the person who would commit these crimes, for whatever reason, will not consider the provision. That has been demonstrated over and over again.

I would also like to point out that this is not a question of cosmetics or even a question of effectiveness. This is a fundamental question about the functioning of our government. Indeed, the provision on mandatory minimum sentencing changes our accountability system. Why? Because the power to determine a sentence, which should belong to a judge and therefore the judicial branch of government, is completely wiped out. This power is being transferred to one of the three main components of government, which are the executive, legislative and judicial branches. It is being transferred from the legislative arm to the executive arm. Even though we are talking about the provincial executive branch, since prosecution, sentencing and the administration of justice are under provincial jurisdiction, the fact remains that, ultimately, prosecutors have to answer to the various justice ministers, assuming of course they are not federal prosecutors who answer to the federal Minister of Justice. A power that should remain entirely judicial is being transferred to the executive branch.

Why am I saying this? Because the judges who determine sentences cannot do so, and the prosecutors are the ones who can ultimately use this whole range of mandatory minimum sentences during the review prior to the charge to determine the sentence themselves. Now, because of mandatory minimum sentences, prosecutors have more latitude to decide what sentence should be imposed than the judge who hears the evidence and arguments from the Crown and the defence.

I think it is just common sense to allow a judge, who has all the necessary tools, to determine the sentence and not leave that to one of the parties, namely the Crown, which does not have the defendant's interests at heart, in which case the process is biased.

When we talk about mandatory minimums, there is a standard of effectiveness that the government is not meeting. This is also a question of governance. Important powers that belong to judges are being transferred to the executive branch of the government. It is appalling that despite all the warnings that were given, the government is stubbornly going ahead with this anyway.

I think that all of the members of the official opposition, and I assume the members of the other parties in the House, would have been completely in favour of studying this bill quickly so as to really toughen up the sentences for individuals convicted of cruelty towards military animals, law enforcement animals and service animals. However, the government decided to take a more difficult route and, once again, raised the question of mandatory minimum sentences. That is the question that we will be bringing up in committee. We hope that the government will listen closely.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which really went to the heart of the issue with this bill.

The aim of this bill is very commendable, but its methods are questionable. That is why we want to examine it in committee.

I would like my colleague to talk about the two bills introduced by our colleagues, in particular Bill C-592, which was introduced by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. It specifically targeted acts of aggression towards police animals and established aggravating circumstances.

Could my colleague outline the advantages of using aggravating circumstances instead of mandatory minimum sentences?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill shows that there are deterrents that will always be constitutional, and we know they are, contrary to mandatory minimum sentences, which leading experts seem to think are not.

This issue is about members on this side of the House wanting to be stricter in animal cruelty cases, an issue that is often ignored but not trivial. We are talking mainly about pets, the animals we call friends.

My colleague from Toronto—Danforth quite rightly mentioned that, by their presence alone, these animals make us more human. They give back as much as they take, so this is not a trivial issue but a very important one.

We need this protection for all of the animals in our lives, especially for our pets, police animals, military animals and service animals.

This bill clearly shows the official opposition party's desire to go in that direction. We hope that the government will reconsider imposing mandatory minimum sentences in this case.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech because he did an excellent job of explaining the official opposition's reservations about these minimum sentences.

As he so capably demonstrated, this is not the first time the government has included its infamous minimum sentences in one of its bills.

Can my colleague expand on how these minimum sentences undermine judges' discretionary power? Can he also tell us why it is important for our democratic society to separate the legislative branch and the judicial branch?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. I think she was basically agreeing with me when I was presenting my arguments on governance because I saw her nodding her head. Indeed, she is absolutely right.

I think we need to trust our judges when it comes to minimum sentences. Our judges, who are appointed by the government, can hear the entire background in any legal case. Obviously, they all have their own way of proceeding based on their different experiences. However, they have the law to draw upon, and they must rely on the law. The law will give them a direction to move toward.

However, imposing mandatory minimums denies them the opportunity to consider the context of the offence committed in their decision-making process. By imposing the same type of decision, we are placing a restriction on judges that, quite often, is in no way in line with the offence, depending on the circumstances, which only the judge is able to consider.

In this sense, taking away this discretion from judges and putting it in the hands of the prosecutor, namely, the executive branch, is a change in governance. It is unconstitutional and extremely detrimental to the social fabric.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am very proud to rise in the House today and resume my work as an MP and as a representative of my constituents from LaSalle—Émard. I am very pleased that we have the opportunity today to debate Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals).

I would also like to say that I am very pleased to share my time with the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

I would be remiss if I did not say a few words about yesterday's events. I must say that I felt safe at all times. From the very start, we were assisted by a security guard who entered the room where we were gathered. He really took charge of our group and ensured that we were safe and protected. I join all the members who spoke before me in thanking all the Parliamentary staff, including the security staff, and the police officers and the members of the RCMP who joined them to ensure that we could be in the House today to debate a bill and continue our work.

I would also like to thank my team and all the Parliamentary staff who experienced these disturbing events with us and who also did an incredible job. I commend my team in the House and also my constituency team with whom I was able to communicate, and who in turn informed the community about what was happening and reassured people that we were in good hands with the security team.

The bill before us today talks about the special relationship between people and animals, not just service animals, but also those in our lives. I am an agronomist by training and as such, and as an interpretive guide at an agricultural museum, I had the opportunity to learn more about farm animals, which are also service animals. I know that Canada's farmers and agricultural producers take special care of these animals and one of my concerns is to make sure that we continue to always have very high standards when it comes to livestock. The same goes for transporting animals and for slaughter facilities. All this must be handled properly. I believe that Canada must continue to have very high standards, whether we are talking about raising, transporting, or slaughtering farm animals.

I am raising this point because we do not talk about it very often. We are becoming more and more removed from our primary agriculture. Although we are still close, because we eat every day, we must also think about the farmers and the animals that serving us in a completely different way. Farm animals, just as much as the other service animals, deserve proper treatment, and even more than that.

Usually, service animals are dogs. As the saying goes, a dog is a man's best friend. Over the years, we have found many ways for dogs to help humans because of certain traits.

I for one am generally apprehensive of dogs. When I go door to door, I admit that I have had experiences with canines that were sometimes positive, sometimes not. I think all politicians, like most letter carriers, have mixed feelings when it comes to dogs, because these encounters are not always pleasant.

However, when I go door to door, I have the opportunity to meet many seniors who live alone and have pets, often dogs. For people living alone, these animals are valuable companions in their lives. That is why I must acknowledge the work, service and assistance that these animals provide to people in my community of LaSalle—Émard.

My colleague from Sudbury also talked about the importance of the assistance provided by service dogs and animals for persons with disabilities. Everyone knows about Mira dogs, which accompany the blind. There are also service dogs for persons with disabilities or, as my colleague mentioned, people with autism. These animals act not only as companions and assistants, but also as intermediaries when it comes to interacting with other people.

Furthermore, I want to pay tribute to the K-9 squad, which helped secure the perimeter yesterday. These dogs provided a very valuable service.

Now, I would like to talk about Bill C-35, which we are supporting at second reading. Our only concerns are very important, and we have expressed them on a number of occasions. This is nothing new; we have extensively debated our concerns in the House, and we have brought them to the attention of the government. Our concerns are about mandatory minimums.

We support the services provided by the K-9 squad and assistance animals, but we do not understand why this bill needs to implement mandatory minimums, since they undermine the discretionary powers of judges. I will give an example.

I will admit that I have a general fear of dogs. I have no intentions of committing an offence, of course, but I do not know how I would react if I were to be attacked by a dog. At such a time, you essentially react by defending yourself. That is why I would like to give the judge, and not the legislative authority, the discretion to impose a minimum sentence.

Judges, defence lawyers and crown prosecutors are in the best position to decide on a fair and appropriate sentence in each case.

We all applaud the work of service animals, especially in light of yesterday's events, when we were all able to see first-hand what they do. However, I must express my opposition to the institution of mandatory minimums, which undermine the discretionary powers of judges.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my sincere thanks to Parliament's security services, which did such an incredible, professional job. I also want to express my solidarity with all of the House employees who were caught up in the tragic events that transpired yesterday.

The bill seems to be part of an ideology that flies in the face of judicial independence in our country and seems to impose political opinions on our judges.

Does my colleague feel that this trend is jeopardizing the separation between the legal and the political?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments and reiterate my thanks to all the House staff, particularly the security services, who welcome us, protect us and guard us every day.

We talked about our democracy a lot yesterday. Separation of powers is at the heart of democracy. Canada has a healthy democracy. The proof is in the fact that we, as representatives of Canadians, debate bills here in the House.

However, we need to be able to benefit from the breadth of judicial experience, which has existed for far longer than I have been in the House. Cases need to be judged based on the experience of past judges and our Criminal Code.

Amending the Criminal Code is no small matter. The current government has made a great number of changes, and we still do not know all the long-term implications of those changes. That is why I find it very troubling that the government wants to impose mandatory minimums in this bill.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her speech.

This is an important bill, but it has disturbing implications. One of the things I worry about is the false sense of security the government is trying to create by imposing cumulative sentences and mandatory minimum sentences.

It is also troubling to see that the NDP is doing most of the debating here. It is quite appalling actually. As my colleague said, changes to the Criminal Code should be made with caution and with the public interest in mind, while respecting our institutions, the three pillars of our democracy.

What does my colleague think of the contempt shown by the government and the lack of substantive debate? During the committee review, does she believe the government will be open to reconsidering certain aspects of the bill?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for taking the government to task, especially given that this is a democracy and we should be able to have thorough debates. This also applies to our committees. We are sending this bill to committee, which is where we can make changes based on the testimony of the experts who appear.

I would ask all of my colleagues on all sides of the House to please listen to the experts, who will give us the facts, so that we can amend the bill properly.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, and especially the member for LaSalle—Émard for sharing her time with me. I also want to congratulate her for her comments earlier today on the state of security on Parliament Hill. She gave a beautiful tribute to our security guards.

I find it quite fitting that today we are debating Bill C-35. As the title clearly says, this is an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals. We recently witnessed some rather extreme violence on Parliament Hill. We must pay tribute to those who are there every day to protect us and protect the institution of Parliament and the parliamentarians, elected members, senators, workers and assistants who work on Parliament Hill. We owe a lot to the security guards who were there to protect us yesterday.

The fact that we are debating Bill C-35 today highlights the fact that officers are not the only ones who are there. There are also service dogs. We saw this yesterday, and we see them all the time. These animals are prepared to risk their lives, consciously or not, to protect our society. We owe them a lot. That is why the bill before us today is laudable. It is a good bill, which has been called Quanto's law.

Quanto's Law is in memory of an Edmonton police service dog that was stabbed to death trying to stop a fleeing suspect in October 2013. A certain suspect pleaded guilty to animal cruelty and other offences, including evading police. He was sentenced to 26 months in prison and banned from owning a pet for 25 years.

It is particularly interesting that the current law as it stands, article 445 of the Criminal Code, already establishes penalties for committing an offence, whether it be killing an animal, maiming an animal, wounding, poisoning, et cetera.

Certainly, when it comes to police dogs, it would certainly be incorporated into this law, but we already have a law. The law right now proposes that a person who commits an offence, if it is an indictable offence, is liable to a maximum of five years imprisonment. If the person is found guilty of an offence on summary conviction, the person is liable to one or both of a maximum of $10,000 in fines and/or imprisonment up to 18 months. This law would change that.

This is subtle, but I will try to explain. The bill would amend section 445 such that anyone found guilty of attacking an animal could be sentenced to up to five years in prison, and the minimum punishment is six months in prison.

Once again, the government is imposing a minimum sentence—and I will come back to that shortly—in cases where a law enforcement animal is killed while aiding a law enforcement officer in enforcing the law, where the offence is prosecuted by indictment. If a law enforcement animal is injured or killed in the line of duty, the punishment for the offence would be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person.

Currently, when judges sentence offenders, the sentences can be served at the same time or consecutively. When they are consecutive, that means the time adds up and the sentence is cumulative. In this situation, someone who kills a animal on duty that is actively trying to prevent the commission of a crime will receive a consecutive sentence. It will not be consecutive if the animal in question is helping a police officer who is trying to prevent a crime. The nuance is subtle, but it is there.

Nevertheless, this bill is flawed. It includes minimum sentences, thereby removing the judge's discretion in some situations. The trial judge knows the facts and is perfectly capable of deciding what sentence should be imposed.

When judges are forced to hand down a particular sentence, they are very reluctant to do so. Some judges have even refused to impose minimum sentences. Cases go to the appeal court or even the Supreme Court, which decides whether the sentence is constitutional.

Why would the government seek to implement a measure that could be deemed unconstitutional when it could have immediately moved forward with a bill that was worthwhile in itself? The mandatory minimum sentence makes it very hard to support this bill. Members, at least those in the opposition, should support this bill at second reading. That way, we could examine it in committee and have a more extensive debate. We could invite experts to appear who will explain the consequences of this measure.

I believe that there will be a consensus. The bill is worthwhile and the amendment to section 445 of the Criminal Code is a good idea, except for the fact that the government is going to impose a minimum sentence.

If the government were prepared to remove this aspect of the bill, I believe we would be more likely to reach a consensus among ourselves and with the witnesses who would appear before the committee to participate in a debate on the bill. In my opinion, many experts would not agree with the bill because of the minimum sentences. Regardless, I would like to hear from these experts, listen to their opinions and better understand whether they consider that the bill is constitutional and has merit and whether it should move forward.

We have time to send this bill to committee. I hope that we will have a very interesting and thorough debate. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have once again made a rather fundamental error in the wording of the bill. That is something that the Conservative government seems to be intent on doing. It has no qualms about constantly adding minimum sentences to bills.

I would like the government to look at what is happening in other jurisdictions. Quebec has determined that cruelty toward animals must be redefined. Harsher sentences are needed. This issue really needs to be examined, and more appropriate sentences are required. In Quebec, this debate will certainly take place, regardless of what happens with the bill before us.

With this bill, particularly given the mandatory minimum, the province in question will end up with people who have been found guilty in its provincial prisons. The province will have to foot the bill. Once again, the federal government is going to download costs to the provinces without providing any assistance.

Minimum sentences do not work for several reasons. One of the main reasons is that the province will once again be left with the costs imposed by the federal government, without any assistance from the feds. I would remind the House that section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out certain principles on which sentences are supposed to be based. I have to wonder whether mandatory minimums reflect the principles of section 718.

Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in the past, and it is important that we also examine it in the House and in committee.

I support this bill at second reading, but I hope the experts will explain the consequences to us in full.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I am sure he will agree that the proof is in the pudding. He expressed certain concerns about some aspects of the bill.

Unfortunately, for the past three years, the Conservative government's majority MO has been to automatically refuse any proposal from the opposition meant to improve government bills that fall in the law and order category and that are sometimes introduced by government members through private members' business.

Would my colleague like to share his feelings on this government's almost entirely uncompromising nature? Does he have any faith in the possibility that this government will listen to reason and make sensible changes to the bill, besides what we can propose as a party?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very good question.

The government often brags about creating jobs. Unfortunately, those jobs are almost always part time.

When the government imposes mandatory minimum sentences, we know that this will almost certainly end in appeal. I wonder whether the government is trying to create jobs for lawyers. They have enough work and I do not think it is necessary to give them more.

Usually people do not have the means to pay for a lawyer to appeal their case to the Supreme Court. That is very expensive. Unfortunately, the government is intent on doing this and often ends up in court instead of allowing Parliament to do its job, study bills and propose amendments, as the NDP has done many times.

The government rejects the amendments and ends up in court every day, every week and every year. This has to stop. The government should show a little more respect for Canadians. It should introduce worthy bills that are sound and not tainted with minimum sentences.

We should allow judges to hand down sentences, as prescribed by law. We should allow bills to be drafted by members of the House so that they can all take part in the debate. The NDP will certainly take part in the debate. The others do not seem all that interested, even though it is their bill. That is too bad.

Once we are in committee, I hope that the government will understand that mandatory minimums are not appropriate, especially in this case. I look forward to hearing from experts on the matter.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that the Criminal Code already includes provisions for this kind of offence.

Based on his quick assessment, does he think that this bill has anything new to contribute, or is it redundant considering what is already in the Criminal Code?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from LaSalle—Émard raises an interesting point.

As my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou said, the government is wasting its time reinventing the wheel with its law and order agenda. We have seen this over and over. The mandatory minimums might be the only new thing about this bill.

The idea of service animals helping soldiers, police officers and security personnel is commendable. Raising this matter is commendable. However, the mandatory minimums are such a significant flaw in the bill that they could bring it crashing down.

Why go ahead with such a questionable bill when we could agree on a totally reasonable bill that raises a very important issue, especially after what we have seen in the past few days in Canada, both in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and here in Ottawa?

We have to talk about these issues. It is our duty to help our security personnel and give them all of the tools they need, not bills that will be struck down on appeal.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am very happy to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-35. It is ironic and timely that we are dealing with a bill that deals with law enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals.

I want to reflect for a very short moment on what took place in the House yesterday. Members have stood today to offer their personal reflections. It was really wonderful to hear the speeches this morning from the leaders of the various political parties, from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and to hear the statements in the House. I think it was one of those days that one does not forget.

I have been here 17 years, and I never believed that I would experience a day like we experienced yesterday. Yes, there was a sense of great anxiety and stress about what was taking place, because of course, we did not know what was going on around us, but I think what I am going to remember is the sense of camaraderie and professionalism and people staying calm and staying together. We all have our own personal experience of where we were, who we were with, and what we heard, but listening to pages, to staff, to the security personnel, and our own staff today, in the lobby, and hearing the perspectives of where people are has been really quite remarkable. I have come away with a feeling that, collectively, everyone kept their cool.

It does not sink in until later how really close we came to a terrible disaster, much worse than what happened, and we are grateful for that.

There are things to remember, but we are back at work. Certainly, that is the hallmark of this institution. It is the people's business. We come back, we get on with our work, and we get on to debating bills, because that is what we are elected to do. We do not do that with a sense of hardship; we do it with a sense of mission and a sense of sincerity about who we are and what we need to do. I am very glad to be back in the House today and to see my colleagues in the House from all sides, and in particular, to be debating the bill.

I heard the debate earlier in the day. I will be making some of the points some of my colleagues have made. I think cruelty to animals, intentional cruelty, is something that just about everybody cannot stomach. It is something that hits us all, and it is something we feel compelled to do something about. Of course, we have the law. We have our criminal justice system to provide protections not just to persons and property but also for animal welfare. That is very important, and I think Canadians support that very strongly.

As we heard in the debate today, the bill comes from a particular incident in 2013, when a police service dog was stabbed to death in the line of duty.

I think that as legislators, it is very important that we examine the bill very carefully, because on its surface, one could say that this is a bill that deserves support. It would specifically introduce a new amendment or create a new offence that would specifically prohibit anyone from killing, wounding, poisoning, or injuring trained animals who work for the police, for persons with disabilities, or for the Canadian Armed Forces.

The principle of the bill is something that is very supportable, and of course, that is what we are debating here today: the bill in principle, at second reading. We, in the NDP, will be supporting the bill to go forward to committee.

Having said that, as the official opposition, our job is to look at the details, go through legislation, get underneath the top layer, and figure out what the bill would really do and maybe, importantly, what the consequences of the bill would be. As we have come to know in the House, and with the current government, it is important to look at the details. How many omnibus bills have we gone through and found terrible surprises in? There have been really awful pieces of legislation that have chucked out other pieces of legislation. The details in a bill become very important.

That is no different for the bill we are debating here today. I would say it is concerning, looking at this bill, because while we have a bill that has good intention, when we look at the details, we can see that it would introduce minimum sentencing and that it does reflect a pattern we have seen from the government over and over again. It is very disturbing.

I have said in the House quite a few times that we should be keeping a list of how the Criminal Code has changed so significantly. We have had all of these bills come through. Some of them have been government bills. Many of them have been private members' bills. They are kind of like these little boutique bills, which one by one pick off this section or that section of the Criminal Code. I guess somebody keeps track of it.

I do recall that one of the terrible things that happened in the House through legislation was that the Law Reform Commission was abolished. I am sure the Speaker will recall this, because he would have debated it in the House when it came forward. It was the Law Reform Commission of Canada's job to go through legislation, evaluate it at a long distance, and give us an overview to give us an oversight. It was abolished.

There is a big question here over who keeps track of what all these changes mean cumulatively and what the consequences are. We certainly try to do that as the opposition. We try to keep track of all of these bills, look at all the little holes and changes they create in the Criminal Code, and see what the total effect is. That is a lot of work.

Here is another example of a bill that, on the surface, may look fairly innocent but, in the detail, does actually have consequences. It is a bill that would bring forward minimum sentencing and provisions around serving consecutively.

Some people may ask what the big deal is about that or whether there is any problem with that. The problem is that our judicial system is based on a history and tradition of prosecution, defence, and the role of the judge in terms of being able to use discretion. The judge is able to look at individual cases as being unique. When we create laws that become, in effect, a one-size-fits-all and that are so hyper-prescriptive, we create problems. This is because when we do it to an extreme, the law does not necessarily fit and cannot meet the circumstances of what a particular case might be about. That is why we have judges who can look at the law, apply provisions, and use this word “discretion”. I sometimes worry that discretion has become a dirty word in this place, yet it is a hallmark of our judicial system.

I am talking about creeping mandatory minimum sentences. I do not know how many bills we have now had in the House that have had those provisions now put in them. It is not just the current government, by the way. There were mandatory minimums with the previous government as well, and there always was the existence of some mandatory minimums. It is not as if there is never a situation where they should not apply, but now they have become so pervasive in the system that they have almost become the lowest common denominator—slap in a mandatory minimum.

I have this little picture in my head of a group of interns or staffers somewhere, who are combing through the Criminal Code section by section and saying, “Hah, mandatory minimum. We could put one there. We could put one here”.

I may be exaggerating a bit, but I sometimes feel that is what is going on, that there is this pattern of seeking out instances where mandatory minimums can be applied, and it is fundamentally changing our judicial system. It is certainly a problem with the bill before us, and I think it is very important that we examine the bill in great detail in committee.

I hope very much that when the bill goes to the justice committee, I presume, government members will not use their majority to then slap on time limits. We are facing that in the public safety committee right now on a bill that has to do with an issue very important to me, which is safe injection sites in this country. It is a complex and important bill, and I find it incredible that at committee there are two meetings for witnesses and that is the end of it—just two meetings. When we get to amendments, I think the motion says that there will be no more than five minutes or something like that. The censorship and limitation that are now placed on the debate and examination of bills is quite ferocious and, in and of itself, very harmful.

We are not here to hold stuff up. I mean, occasionally that does happen. We might have a bill that we just dig in and say that we will hold it up as long as we can, but by and large we are not here to hold things up. We are here to give proper consideration both in the House at second reading and in committee with amendments and then when it comes back to the House for report stage and third reading.

Therefore, when the bill goes to committee, I hope the committee will be fair and consider that there should not be limits placed on it in terms of the timeline for its consideration, so that the committee can look at some of the questions that I and others have identified today in debate.

I am not on the justice committee, but I am sure others will raise this. It is to look at Department of Justice reports that actually tell us that mandatory minimum sentences have not had a demonstrable deterrent effect. This is something to consider. We go to these extraordinary lengths to change legislation and have it go through the House, the Senate, and the whole process, yet there is really no evidence to show us whether or not it is a deterrent. In fact, the opposite may be true in that the misuse of mandatory minimum sentences, as my colleague said earlier, leads to a downloading to provinces, overcrowding, and skyrocketing costs. These are very real consequences. Provincial budgets are tight. Again, the question is who is tracking that.

I have seen some information come out on the impact of mandatory minimum sentences. I think the Canadian Bar Association has been doing some work on tracking what the impact is, and there has been some work done on a bill that dealt with mandatory minimums for drug crimes. In fact, there was a court case in British Columbia in which a judge refused to go along with the mandatory minimum aspect, and that is now under review.

There are some very serious questions that need to be considered in the bill. This needs to be done in the context of a larger impact in terms of the Criminal Code and our justice system. I think it is very important and incumbent upon us not to ignore that fact. If we just look at these as one-offs, we will never understand the full picture.

What bothers me the most is the strong sense I have that the way the government operates is that for every problem the Conservatives identify, they see the solution as a new law that is harsher.

Some of these questions are complex social questions, and there is no evidence to suggest that a tougher law, a law-and-order approach, is going to actually solve anything. In fact, it might very likely make the situation worse. These things really bother me, and I have certainly seen these changes taking place over a number of years.

However, to come back to the bill itself, we think there are some good aspects in it that should warrant our support. I know that my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and my colleague from Parkdale—High Park have put forward initiatives that deal with animal cruelty. I myself have a bill that also deals with this issue. I have presented thousands of petitions in the House about cruelty to cats and dogs in terms of the use of their fur from overseas, and how it should be banned as it has been banned in other countries.

There are numerous initiatives that we have within the NDP to protect against animal cruelty, and certainly we have a huge appreciation for the role that law-enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals play in our society. Again, I come back to yesterday when it was very visible. These are highly trained animals. They are well cared for. They are intelligent. We do not want to see them come into harm's way. We do not want to see vicious attacks on these animals, just as we do not want to see attacks on people. It is not as if we do not care; in fact, we care very much, and the bills we have put forward ourselves in private members' business are evidence of that.

Still, we have to worry about this bill. I have a concern that it is just going to flow right through and we will not have that examination, but we should and we want to ensure that the provisions in Bill C-35 are no different from the penalties and fines already set out in section 445 of the Criminal Code for all animals other than cattle. There is a lot to examine here.

I appreciate the fact that my colleagues have spoken today. We do want to say this for the government. Why is it so important that the government wants to take away sentencing discretion from the courts? Are the Conservatives aware of their own justice department's work about mandatory minimums and whether or not they are a deterrent? Are they aware of how mandatory minimums are undermining the entire legal process? I do not know if there is that knowledge on the government side, whether or not the Conservatives are curious to know the answers to those questions. I can only say that we are, and we think it should be followed up.

In closing, I would like to add my voice along with my colleagues in saying that we certainly support this bill going to committee. It does require further examination. It does need to be looked at in the context of other legislation where mandatory minimums have been brought in. We need to look at the impacts on the provincial system, we need to look at the costs, and we need to ask some tough questions. We need to be intelligent and rational about how we proceed on these kinds of measures. We need to look at evidence, not political doctrine. At the end of the day, that is what is most important. We are here to uphold the public interest. We are here to uphold the notion of merit, evidence, and analysis. Let us remember that when we consider this bill further, and let us hope we can make some sensible decisions.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East, who spoke about the government's strong tendency to amend the Criminal Code. She also spoke intelligently about the long-term consequences of these changes to the Criminal Code. We still do not know all of the repercussions. However, we can look at the impact the Bush years had on prisons in California, for example. We can look at the facts to see if legislating tougher sentences really deters crime.

She also talked about the monetary costs for Canada and the provinces as well as the social costs of imposing minimum sentences for the sorts of reasons set out in the various bills that we have studied in the House.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member has reminded me of yet another aspect that we need to consider when looking at the bill, and that is what has taken place in the United States.

I was doing a lot of work on the bill that came forward with mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, and this was several years ago when it came forward in its first form. I did a fair amount of research in the U.S. about what was going on. This was before the election of President Obama.

I was so surprised to learn that in individual states in the U.S., there were various commissions being set up to look at the impact of mandatory minimum sentencing. In some states, and I do not remember all of the states, they were actually repealing it, because their prisons were absolutely overflowing, particularly with young African American men and mostly for drug crimes. These are people who are, in effect, sentenced for life, because their opportunity to come back into society and to contribute becomes more and more marginalized and limited.

I did find it really interesting that on the one hand, in the United States, even under the Bush administration, there was a movement beginning to get away from mandatory minimum sentencing, yet here in Canada we were embarking on this course. That seemed quite incredible.

I am glad the member raised this. For Canadians who follow this, they should be quite concerned that we are taking a very regressive path. We often think of ourselves as being so advanced compared to the U.S., whether it is with health care or enforcement issues, yet in some instances we are doing a lot worse, and this would be one of them. We are falling far behind.

I am glad the member raised this point. I think it is very important. Just as they are reviewing their sentencing procedures in the U.S., we should be doing the same in Canada. It is not too late to do that here. I thank the member for raising this point.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to dig into the issue of mandatory sentences a little further.

Even though we are talking about a very good concept in terms of what the bill is meant to tackle, in terms of the disastrous effects and the fact that previous mandatory sentences in this country have been ruled unconstitutional by our courts, I wonder if my colleague would care to comment on the repeated attempts by the government to introduce mandatory sentencing.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the hon. member for Vancouver East, I would just remind all hon. members that there is great latitude given in terms of relevance, but that members ought to remember the bill that is before the House and keep their comments consistent with that.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very relevant that we are looking at the question of mandatory minimum sentences because this is a feature in the bill. The question I heard from my colleague was about why the government continues to do this when it is being challenged and when there is now mounting evidence that there are problems with mandatory minimum sentences. In this case it happens to be six months in prison if a law enforcement animal is killed while helping a police officer enforce the law, so that is the particular provision that is included in the bill.

Unfortunately, I do not know that there is a rationale as to why Conservatives continue to do it. It has become a very political question. It is not a question of evidence. It is not a question of judicial oversight. It is a mindset, a rigid attitude that somehow a mandatory minimum is going to fix the problem and is going to make people feel better. It is a very emotional thing. It is not based on evidence. In fact, as I said, the evidence shows us that it is going the other way.

That is very problematic. I do not think we want a judicial system based on what we think people perceive as tougher. We need to base public policy decisions on evidence, merit and public interest overall. We are facing a very big situation and that is why we are focusing on this aspect in the bill, because it really bothers us that yet again we are seeing this same pattern emerge.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for her very enlightening speech.

At the risk of repeating myself, I want to say that we are studying this bill at second reading in order to send it to committee. That is why we will be supporting it at second reading.

I would like to take advantage of my colleague's extensive experience—she has already been in politics for 17 years—and hear her comments about the committee stage. Unfortunately, during committee work, government members often join forces and use their majority in each committee to reject expert advice and any proposals that come from the opposition parties.

I would like to know how confident she is about the work that will be done on this bill at committee stage.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit of a speculative question but it is certainly worth answering, especially today where in question period the debate in the House was very collegial and we talked about working together. We talked about good will and having respect. I know those are all things that we share, but somehow it gets lost on the way and sometimes it gets horribly lost at committee where real dogfights take place.

It is very disturbing. Committees used to be very collegial. I can remember when committees used to issue quite a lot of unanimous reports because there was a lot of negotiation, give and take, and they would come out with unanimous reports. I see a member across the way who would remember that. That is very rare today because now there is a kind of shadow from the PMO, a rigidity of how to view a bill at committee and a lot of opposition members feel like we are being shut down at committee. It is unfortunate because some of the good work that MPs can do happens at committee. We want to improve the bill. We want to make constructive suggestions.

The question from my colleague is whether I think that will happen. Well, there is always hope, but unfortunately we have seen a very strong pattern at committee of the government members' votes just kind of washing over and that has been very unfortunate. Because this is a bill that we all do support in a way and it is about the welfare of animals that we all care about, maybe there will be some good will to constructively look at amendments. Let us hope for that. I do not want to be cynical, so let us send the bill to committee and hope that we can come out with a better bill. Would that not be a good thing?

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after yesterday's events, I would first like to say how proud I am to be able to rise in the House and speak freely in this Parliament and in this democracy. I would like to thank all of the security teams that watched over us and protected us.

There are no words that can truly express the gratitude that I think everyone in the House has for the gentlemen who work to protect the House and all Canadians who come to visit it each day. To stand in the House on this day to speak to this bill is of particular pride.

Bill C-35 is a bill that, in its essence, I am very proud to support. I come from a riding that has a large number of animal lovers. I am a cat person. I recently lost my companion animal. When I open my iPad, it is her little face that I see each time. The desire to protect our animal companions and partners is something of import.

Before I forget, Mr. Speaker, I will let you know that I will be splitting my time with the member for Ottawa Centre.

We are only beginning to make the connection between the four-legged companions by our sides in the domestic and leisure sense. We spend a lot of time, energy and money on the care of these companions. Animals and handlers have that very unique relationship where they are working partners, where these animals willingly put their lives on the line to protect their human handlers. Without question, they put themselves between their partners and bullets or knives. It is only right that we pay them the respect they are due for their unwavering sacrifice and dedication. This is where we come together on Bill C-35.

To be able to say that to harm this animal is to harm myself is extremely important. Unfortunately, where we begin to diverge is in how this is going to be expressed. How are we going to quantify the lives of these animals? Unfortunately, this very noble bill is tainted somewhat by the efforts to yet again introduce mandatory minimum sentences. As I understand our government, we are divided into three spheres: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. There are codes in place that create checks and balances so that no one of these sectors, so to speak, can overpower the other.

With the introduction of minimum mandatory sentences, we run into a situation where we invade the jurisdiction of the judiciary. We take away the ability for our judges, who we entrust with their wisdom and knowledge of law, and the intricacies of human nature and human actions, to justly administer the law.

We call it the justice system for a reason. It is not the vengeance system. It is not the vindictive system. It is the justice system. To mete out justice, one must have the ability to take all things into consideration. Justice may be blind, but it is not deaf and dumb. The ability for a judge to take all the evidence into consideration is something that we protect. It is our job to ensure it is done in a way that speaks to our society.

Unfortunately, yet again, the government introduces minimum mandatory sentences, basically using a sledgehammer to kill a gnat. The importance of being able to create a full picture of what a person has done, what crime a person has committed, is the hallmark of our justice system. The sledgehammer analogy that I used is referring to the fact that for some reason the government seems to shy away from the details, the minutia, of the creation of legislation. They say, “Let us put a bill together. Let us make it wrong to do this thing and let us throw them in prison forever”.

That is not our job. Our job as legislators, and the reason we have debates, is to take a concept, an idea, a bill and go through that bill with a fine tooth comb to ensure that when we come to conclusion, each and every detail results in a bill that serves the people of Canada; that it protects the interests of those we are trying to protect and the rights of those who might be falsely accused; and allows for the judgment, from our judges, to take extenuating circumstances, to take all the information that is presented to them, into consideration in handing out a just sentence. The details of Bill C-35 are virtually absent.

We definitely empathize with the origin of the bill. It is nicknamed Quanto's Law. We understand where it comes from and we agree wholeheartedly that our companion animals, those who serve the people who protect us, help find contraband materials at our borders, help find mines in war zones, and help find lost souls in avalanches, should be protected. However, are they really going to be protected with mandatory minimum sentences?

My colleague spoke to the effect of mandatory minimum sentences. She mentioned that we have no real proof that mandatory minimum sentences work.

In this spirit of camaraderie that was expressed today, I hope we can take this noble bill to committee, to look at how we can give judges the latitude to impose the proper punishments on individuals who harm our friends without making it something which is basically killing a gnat with a sledgehammer.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and riding neighbour for his speech.

He also spoke about yesterday's events, as well as what companion animals do for people. These animals can include cats, which he loves. For the constituents we represent, especially seniors, these companions are important.

I would also like the member to talk more about the importance of pets. As we have heard, they can help with security, but they can also help with general well-being. Pets are good for our psychological well-being, which is an important aspect of the role these animals play.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Our relationship with animals is truly special and unique. It takes time for service animals to be trained and for a relationship to develop. It is truly special. That is why we need to treat these animals as partners and friends.

They deserve the protections this bill would offer. What I am putting out there is that mandatory minimums is not the way to go. We should give judges the opportunity and range to respond in kind to whatever threat is posed to our animal friends.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke a lot about mandatory minimums, so I would like to hear his comments. After the speeches we have heard, it is clear that this issue is very important to us with this bill.

During my speech I said that this would take powers away from judges—no one disagrees there—and would put those powers in the hands of prosecutors, but that it was also a question of governance. This bill would remove power from the legislative branch and give it to the executive branch. We know that prosecutors work under the jurisdiction of various justice departments and ministers at the provincial and federal levels. It is not simply a question of effectiveness or even cost. It is also a question of a change in governance.

I would like to hear what my colleague thinks about that.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the separation of the executive, the judicial and the legislative is something that is fundamental to our system of governance. The introduction of mandatory minimum sentences is dangerous to those divisions because it takes away the flexibility and wisdom of the judiciary, and places the balance in the hands of both the executive and legislative branches wherein the total governance of our nation could become imbalanced.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to speak in support of Bill C-35, which we are debating today.

I want to express my gratitude to the guards, the first responders, who basically saved our lives yesterday. They went through a lot yesterday and we cannot thank them enough. Let me be frank. On a daily basis in this place and in this precinct, we take them for granted. Our hearts are with them not only because of what they did for us yesterday but for what they do for us on a daily basis.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the RCMP and to the Ottawa police force. What happened yesterday is fresh in our memory. As this is my first opportunity to rise in the House since the horrific events of yesterday, I want to take this opportunity to thank them. I am grateful for their help. They did their job. If they had not done their job, we might not be in this place today. We should never take that for granted.

I want to thank all of them for not only what they have done for us in the past but particularly for what they did yesterday and will continue to do in the future.

We understand the context of Bill C-35. This legislation is in memory of an Edmonton police service dog named Quanto. I recall many times in this place bills that have been attributed to events or to individuals, but this legislation is quite unique. People who are not aware of the context of this legislation would not really appreciate the fact that we are talking about protecting animals and the importance of what they do.

Some people may be scratching their heads because we are having a debate about dogs in the Parliament of Canada. It would appear to be strange.

However, the context of this legislation is important because of the horrific violence that took place involving this police service dog. It ups our game in looking at protecting those who serve and those who are first responders. That is a good thing and something we should celebrate. Again, I think of the events of yesterday. Now more than ever we can appreciate every device used to protect people.

This legislation is inspired by the case of the Edmonton police service dog named Quanto. It was a horrific event. The dog was stabbed to death during its pursuit of a fleeing suspect. The case really grabbed people's attention in October 2013 and pushed people to act. The Deputy Speaker and one of my colleagues had a private member's bill on this same issue.

We must look at the whole context of first responders. We must look not only at service dogs and what they do in the case of police services but also rescue dogs and what they do to help people who are stranded. Many of my colleagues have given us their stories. This past Fall there were a couple of stories involving kids who had walked away from their homes. Rescue dogs found those kids and they were returned to their homes safely. I was inspired by those stories.

It is important that we look at the whole issue of first responders and that is what this legislation does. Obviously, first responders are supported by technology, but they are also supported with backup, like logistics and communications. We saw that yesterday.

However, to have dogs that are highly trained and supportive gives first responders confidence that they will be supported.

If people do not understand the kind of work our police services and our military do, they might not appreciate the importance of service animals. Service animals have a very long tradition, a history that is not particularly new. What is new is that we are recognizing that their importance merits putting amendments into the Criminal Code to make sure it is recognized.

To branch out a bit beyond police service dogs, having travelled a bit in my capacity as foreign affairs spokesperson, I know that overseas our military uses service dogs to accompany soldiers. Dogs were trained in Afghanistan to help in terms of IEDs, explosives, and munitions. Through their work they provide safety for our military abroad and for civilians who might be affected by conflict. These dogs are there to sniff out explosives so that the explosives can be deactivated and will not be used to kill people. These dogs provide an extraordinarily important service.

We have to understand rescue animals in that context. Particularly with dogs, which I know best, this approach is important.

We also have to understand the importance of these animals in terms of what they are able to provide. It is not just that they are trained to aid and abet the work of first responders, police, military, et cetera; they also provide important support for those people, who are working in highly stressful situations.

We have come to learn a lot about the importance of animals in the field of mental health and the effect dogs can have. I think of what is happening with veterans, for instance. A lot of work being done with veterans uses animals, particularly dogs, to help them. I have seen it with seniors as well. I have seen it with kids with autism, et cetera. It is important to understand this capability, and it is really smart to provide this service to people, because it works.

We have a dog in our home, Wesley. He was a rescue dog from Iqaluit in Nunavut. He is a little West Highland Terrier and a mix of some other breeds—a Heinz 57, if you will, and I know the kind of support he provides our family. My two teenage boys might not be able to talk to me about everything, but certainly they can confide in Wesley. We know that really does help.

We see this as an important good, both for first responders in making sure people are safe as well as in providing that personal support, but there are times when the dogs are put in harm's way or in perilous situations, such as in the example from last October, so it makes sense to put this reform into the Criminal Code. We acknowledge the government's promises in the Speech from the Throne and we look for its commitments on some of the other issues we noted in the Speech from the Throne coming forward as well in regulation legislation.

It is important to note what my colleagues have noted when we are talking about Criminal Code changes. When I was first elected, I recall my colleague from Windsor, the Deputy Speaker, noting the government's agenda on justice matters and saying that it would be really smart to have an overview of the Criminal Code. However, one of the things we should stay away from is putting mandatory minimums on all legislation, which seems to be a dominant response of the Conservative government. The Criminal Code was passed by Parliament and it is important that we get it right, but as my colleague from Montreal stated, the judiciary must have some leeway—some—to interpret and to sentence appropriately after having had a full hearing of evidence provided on a case.

That point is very important when it comes to this piece of legislation and others, simply because when a mandatory minimum law was put in place in the past, judges felt it restricted their ability to sentence in a sensible way. This meant that as a result of the mandatory minimum declaration, justice sometimes could not be done.

That is why, on this side, we believe that a mandatory minimum approach should be restricted to very few cases. Our colleague from Windsor has taught law and understands these issues. I think that the one case for which we have evidence that it might work was in the case of drunk driving, but other than that, we have not seen evidence that it works.

We believe that this is a good initiative. We think that we should go forward, take it to committee, and improve it. We should make sure that the government understands that, as with other justice issues and bills, it should resist the temptation to have mandatory minimums.

On this day, let me say that there is a lot of agreement on the issue. There is a lot of support, and the importance of the issue is recognized. That is a good thing. Let us work together to improve the bill and make sure it is the best bill that we can provide.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 6:14 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-35, also known as Quanto's law. It would amend the Criminal Code regarding law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals. I support the bill at second reading, though I hope that some work will be done to it in committee.

First of all, it would be remiss of me if I did not acknowledge what happened last Wednesday and what it felt like to be back in my riding over the weekend. I can tell members that wherever I went in my riding, people were deeply concerned. They were very thankful for our safety, but they were also very sad about Corporal Nathan Cirillo.

For many of them, to see their MP back in their riding and back doing the work of Parliament gave them a certain amount of reassurance. I remember talking to some constituents about other MPs as well. Many of the constituents expressed that it was good that we were not going to let what happened last Wednesday make us take drastic steps. We should let the authorities do their work and the investigation, and we need a very measured response to what happened.

Absolutely, we need to review things, but right now, we are thinking of Corporal Cirillo. We are also thinking of his six-year-old son, his family and his friends.

I also want to acknowledge our heartfelt gratitude to all of the men and women in uniform in our building here, and those who came in, who risked their lives. They put themselves in harm's way in order to ensure the safety not only of the MPs but of the young children visiting and the other members of the public and the staff on the Hill as well.

It is these kinds of tragedies that remind us that Canada is a multicultural nation. It is a nation that loves. For me, I was so touched this weekend, because for so many people, that is what it was about. Let us not look at our neighbours with different sets of eyes. Let us just hold hands and get through this together. I felt that over and over again.

Many of the religious places helped, whether they were a masjid, or mosque as many of us would say, a gurdwara, a mandir, or a church. Many held prayers over the weekend. Once again, they were prayers of gratitude and prayers acknowledging what has happened. People were praying that we continue to be the peaceful nation that we are, that we continue to love as we have always done, and that we continue to be inclusive.

It would have felt strange if I had not said a few of those things today in light of what happened last week, but as we are here to do the business of the people and debate the bill, I will get back to talking about this particular piece of legislation.

As we all know, this legislation is now being labelled as “Quanto's law”, which is in memory of the Edmonton Police Service dog that was stabbed to death while trying to stop a fleeing suspect in October 2013. Paul Joseph Vukmanich pleaded guilty to animal cruelty and other offences, including evading the police. He was sentenced to 26 months in prison and banned from owning a pet for 25 years.

We all know the important role that enforcement animals, military animals and service animals play, and we are all very concerned when any harm is done to them deliberately. It is because of this that the bill is here.

Having come from a family that has had dogs for many years, since the kids were little, it is very hard for me, and I think for many of us in this room, to imagine how someone could attack a dog or any other service animal. However, it does happen. When I was telling my grandchildren that we would be debating the bill, my granddaughter's reaction was, “Why is it only for law enforcement animals?”, so I explained the background of the bill to her. Of course, she still cries about Buddy, who passed away a while ago, every time she looks at her photos. Our pets are very close to us.

However, we have some concerns with Bill C-35, even though we are supporting sending it to committee. Once again, our concerns point to something we have seen all too often. When we see a piece of legislation come forward, it does not matter what it purports to do, because when one looks at the details, there is always a little twist in there that makes it more difficult for us to see what it would entail. However, there are two areas of the bill that cause us major concern, and it will not be news to anybody, because I have expressed concern about minimum and consecutive sentences before. The introduction of minimum and consecutive sentences causes us great concern, and we will bring amendments at the committee stage.

I am hoping, unlike in the past, that we will see a certain level of co-operation from the government side so that we can address the legislation in the way that parliamentarians are supposed to in a democracy. The opposition at committee stage and in the House plays a critical role in pointing out flaws in a bill, and a good government, one that believes in democracy and the parliamentary process, would heed some of that input, accept amendments and then have a robust debate.

What would Bill C-35 do?

Concretely, the bill would amend section 445 of the Criminal Code. It would create a new offence for killing or injuring a service animal, law enforcement animal or military animal while the animal is on duty. It would set a minimum sentence of six months if a law enforcement animal is killed while an offence is being perpetrated, and it would provide for the sentence imposed on a person to be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

Members can see the difficulties we have with the bill, which are points two and three that I just made. As in much of the legislation that has come from across the way, including omnibus legislation, which is usually thicker than the phone books in most municipalities in the country, the devil is always in the details.

I have to express my deep concern that here we have a laudable bill that could have gone through with much speed, although the government across the way has other ways to achieve that speed. However, the bill could have gone through, but it has been tainted by the introduction of minimum sentencing, which clearly reflects the repressive agenda that the government is bringing forward. Once again, it would tie the hands of our judiciary, and once again it would have the legislative branch hampering the work and independence of the judiciary.

Even before the judge in question or a jury hear the case, the sentence has been predetermined, and that is disconcerting. The sentence may have happened anyway, or it might have even been a longer sentence, but once again it takes away the judiciary's discretion.

I want my colleagues across the way to think seriously about the consequences of minimum and consecutive sentencing on the criminal justice system. If crime could be solved just by putting people in prison, then the U.S. would have no crime today. Many states spend more on prisons than on many of their other programs. If just putting somebody in prison could solve the issue, then the U.S. would be crime free.

We hear about overcrowding in our prisons. We have heard testimony to that end with regard to another bill. That creates a concern as well.

My major concern is that we would be tying the hands of the judiciary. We would be taking away the jobs of those who are appointed to make judgments.

Hope springs eternal, in me at least, and I am sure in many of us. I am still hopeful that the government will not use many of the tools that it has used before to silence debate in the House.

Legislation has been sent to committees where no witnesses have been heard, and I am talking about a major piece of legislation that would have redefined citizenship. The government's majority on the committee used bullying tactics and time allocation to make sure the legislation was pushed through without hearing from any expert witnesses. A closure motion was brought forward only last week. My colleagues across the way seem to feel that time allocation is the way that they have to do business. I find that disconcerting.

I am hopeful that when we look at legislation now, especially after last week, that we realize we are here to represent our constituents. When we debate bills here, all of us, no matter whether we are independents, Conservative, NDP, or Liberal, have a contribution to make. Every one of us is here to represent our constituents. Every one of us wants legislation passed through the House that has had due diligence, proper oversight, and that will not be open to all kinds of other challenges.

I grew up with in England with a saying that sometimes people can be “penny wise and pound foolish”. I think of that saying often, as we rush through legislation that ends up being challenged in the courts and costing Canadian taxpayers a huge amount of money. I think of that when laws are passed that make no sense and take away people's rights.

My colleagues and I support this legislation at second reading, but we do have major concerns. We want to hear from witnesses and we want to express those concerns. We will definitely be bringing forward amendments.

I would love to have a bill go through all stages in a respectful manner, and being respectful does not mean just sitting here; it means listening and responding to the issues that are raised.

There is already legislation in place and fines set out, in section 445 of the Criminal Code, for all animals other than cattle. That is already there. Therefore, we can reassure our families and friends who have cats, dogs, or other pets, that there is already legislation in place. This is an amendment to that legislation, which specifically targets service, enforcement, and military animals. It is there for a reason. We have legislation when a crime is committed against RCMP officers or the military while they are on duty, and this is to parallel that.

It is no surprise that there are forces and police departments across this country who may be supporting this bill. I know that the Edmonton Police Service does support the bill, and it is fair to assume that there are others who support it too. I support this bill because it is good to have legislation that is very explicit. However, as I said earlier, I do have some concerns.

I would like to quote Staff Sergeant Trevor Hermanutz of the Edmonton Police Service canine unit, who said that officers are pleased with the law. He stated:

We know that now we have a law that is going to put some teeth to the matter—the fact that when people want to injure or kill law enforcement animals, there are some serious legal consequences to their actions....

I would advise members, and the numbers may have changed since I read this document, that the RCMP currently has 157 police dogs in service across Canada. The Canada Border Services Agency has 53 dog and handler teams. We are not talking about thousands of animals, but there is definitely a number that is over 200.

There is not a person in this House, it does not matter which side, who in any way condones animal cruelty. I can say on behalf of my colleagues that we condemn all forms of animal cruelty. That is a position we have supported for a long time. It is reflected in Bill C-232 and Bill C-592. At the same time that we condemn that cruelty, we are also very cautious. We have been bitten one too many times, I suppose. The Conservatives, my colleagues across the way, always manage to put some zingers in the bills that they introduce. Sometimes I wonder if those zingers are to see whether we would oppose the bill. However, this time I am seriously hoping that they will look at our concerns at committee stage and assist us in adding some amendments.

I want to say again that we support this bill. However, there are two things that we do have serious concerns with and which I will reiterate; they are the minimum sentences and the consecutive sentences. We are looking forward to hearing expert witnesses, but not one or two witnesses being given to the opposition and then the government saying it is done. We want a robust debate. This is an opportunity for us to discuss minimum sentencing, its impact on the system, and how it impacts the role of the judiciary.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this piece of legislation is widely supported across a wide variety of stakeholder groups and that it is seeking to impose stiffer penalties for those who would harm or kill service animals in the line of duty. It is something that I think all of us support here. We certainly heard that support from my colleagues in the NDP.

My colleague across the way mentioned that she is looking forward to a fulsome debate in committee, to having a full set of witnesses, and to discussing potential amendments. This particular line of inquiry happens at committee stage.

Given that my colleague and her colleagues have expressed support and that we have a a wide base of stakeholder support across communities, and given that this next stage of inquiry happens at committee stage, I wonder if my colleague would answer as to why she will not push the bill toward committee stage at this time.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, and my colleague across the way may not have been in the room at the time, I do support it at this stage. I do want it to go to committee, and I do want to have a full array of witnesses come forward.

One point that I will disagree on with my colleague across the way, with a great deal of respect, is that what she is saying is not always the case. She made the assertion that at committee stage witnesses are heard and a robust debate takes place. However, since I have been in this Parliament, we have had a major piece of legislation go through without any witnesses being called.

I have been the vice-chair on a number of pieces of legislation at committee, and I have seen how they have been pushed through with very little attention being paid to opposing points of view on anything that the government has brought forward.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express that I fully agree with the hon. member's comments with respect to her concern as it relates to consecutive and minimum sentencing. I certainly share her concern that it would be helpful to give discretion to the judiciary and the prosecution in terms of looking at the facts of a case before setting out sentences.

However, I do want to direct her specifically to section 445.01(2)(b), which deals with summary conviction offences. In this particular instance, it does not actually set out a minimum prison sentence. It sets out the potential for a prison sentence of up to 18 months, but not a minimum.

Therefore, depending upon whether the prosecution decides to proceed by an indictable offence or a summary conviction offence, if it proceeds on the lesser charge, there may not be a minimum sentence imposed.

Does this alleviate her concern with respect to minimum sentencing?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

No, Mr. Speaker, it does not.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as justice critic for the New Democratic Party, I think second stage consideration is important. I appreciated hearing what my colleague had to say. I think second stage is a very important part of the process. When we get to committee we will have heard all of these comments, be they from the new Democrats, the Conservatives, the Liberals, or whomever.

I appreciate the member's concern with respect to minimum sentencing. I appreciate her concern with respect to consecutive sentencing. The problem is that often, as she said, the devil is in the details.

What concerns the member the most? Is it the consecutive sentencing or the minimum sentencing? Since the minimum sentence in similar cases seems to be higher than what has been proposed in the bill, would it be more of a concern with the consecutive sentencing, which might create a problem inside the judicial system?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is far more of an expert in this area than I am. I appreciate that she is the critic for this area and does amazing work, not only in representing her riding but also in educating us on many issues.

I am looking forward to the debate. Right now both concern me, and the consecutives concern me more. However, I need to hear more debate.

We have parliamentary democracy for a reason and legislation goes through the various cycles for a reason. My big fear at second reading is that just because the government has a majority, it seems to think it can truncate different parts of that parliamentary process to get to the end goal. Sometimes when that it is done, harm is done.

For me, every stage of the legislation is important. I have been in the House for second reading of some bills and have not seen one colleague from the other side stand to speak to it. In this case, members might wonder who they are debating. The government brings in the legislation and we need to debate that with the it, as well as hear from colleagues on this side and from the other opposition party at the other end.

As well as participating and hearing from this side, a critical element is to have government members stand, debate and present their cases. If those cases are compelling, then my mind could be changed. That is why I come to the House. Those who have known me for the last number of years, in whichever job I have done and wherever I have been, know I do listen and I do change my mind if I hear cogent and coherent arguments.

Right now, some of my colleagues are saying that I do not. It is very disrespectful because they are impugning my intentions. Only I have the right to determine what I say and what my intentions are.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Newton—North Delta clearly outlined why the New Democrats will support the legislation. However, she also outlined some of our concerns.

I want to refer to the speech that was given by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, in which she highlighted the fact that the New Democrats had two private members' bills before the House dealing with animal cruelty.

In her speech, she referenced Bill C-232 from the member for Parkdale—High Park. Her bill would remove animals from the section of the Criminal Code on property and create a new section for animal cruelty offences. In short, animals would be considered people and not just property. She went on to say that the definition of animal was inadequate, which Bill C-232 would attempt to address.

The second private member's bill is Bill C-592 from the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. That bill seeks to better define what an animal is under the Criminal Code and what is meant by intents and acts of cruelty.

Since 2006, we have seen a failure on the part of the Conservative government to address some very valid concerns with regard to animal cruelty. Could the member comment on the government's failure to address some of those other issues?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan has been one of my mentors, even before I became a member of Parliament. She has done amazing work in the area of aboriginal and first nations communities. She has also been very calm and thorough in addressing critical issues. The member is a role model for many us on how to do the work of a parliamentarian, and I thank her for that.

As with many other issues that need to be addressed, we have seen a pattern in the government. There can be legislation introduced by the opposition that just sits there. The Conservatives do not want to debate it or address those issues. However, when they put forward legislation, they want to rush it through.

I think there is unanimity in this room. We do want to address cruelty to animals. However, this bill, even though it goes part way, has major flaws that we want to see debated.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, I should advise the House that there have been more than five hours of debate on this motion during this first round. Consequently, the speeches will now be 10 minutes and the period for questions and comments will be 5 minutes.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Newton—North Delta for her very kind comments. She has also done yeoman's work in the House, particularly with regard to issues recently around child care. I want to acknowledge the good work she has done. As well, the member clearly indicated that the New Democrats would be supporting Bill C-35. It was interesting to hear questions from the other side.

We talk about this place being a democratic institution. Part of being a democratic institution is ensuring that my constituents are represented in the House. That means as members of Parliament we should have an opportunity to rise in the House to speak to particular legislation. The members ask why do we not just get it to committee. I do not happen to sit on the justice committee, so I would be unable to participate in the questioning of witnesses and in any debate at the committee with regard to the legislation. Therefore, it is important that I am able to rise in the House to express what I think are concerns for my riding and to have that voice on the record.

Again, we support the bill and as the member for Newton—North Delta rightly pointed out, we do have concerns. However, let me talk about what the substance of the bill is.

According to the legislative summary, Bill C-35, an act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals), is as follows. It is also called Quanto's law in honour of the police dog which was stabbed to death while helping to apprehend a fleeing suspect in Edmonton, Alberta in October 2013. Quanto had four years of decorated service and had participated in more than 100 arrests. The legislative summary says:

Currently, an offence is committed under sections 444 and 445 of the Criminal Code (Code) when someone wilfully kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures cattle or when someone kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures a pet wilfully and without lawful excuse.

There are also a number of provisions that address cruelty to animals, including section 445.1 of the Code, which establishes that it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal.

The legislative summary goes on to talk on to talk about what the new offences are and it indicates:

Clause 3 creates new subsection 445.01 (1) of the Code,3 which establishes that it is an offence to wilfully and without lawful excuse kill , maim, wound, poison or injure a law enforcement animal while it is aiding a law enforcement officer in carrying out that officer's duties; a military animal while it is aiding a member of the Canadian Forces in carrying out that member's duties; or a service animal while it is assisting a person with a disability.

It goes on to say that, “A minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months takes effect only if a law enforcement animal is killed”.

Subsequently it refers to the consecutive sentences clause 2:

Clause 2 of Bill C-35 creates new section 270.03 of the Code, which establishes that, if the abovementioned offences are committed against a law enforcement officer...the sentence imposed shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

We certainly support an initiative that protects service animals. We know they play a very important role in aiding police officers, border security in airports where the service animals are being used for drug detection. We support legislation that enhances the protection for these animals, but as other members have rightly pointed out, there are some serious concerns with regard to the continuing use of mandatory minimum sentences and the consecutive sentencing clause within the legislation.

I want to turn for a moment to the mandatory minimum sentences. There have been a number of scholarly articles written over the last several years with regard to the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences in the United States. I want to quote an article that was published February 10, 2014, by the Heritage Foundation. The articles says, “Reconsidering Mandatory Minimum Sentences”. In the abstract, it indicates:

Mandatory minimum sentences are the product of good intentions, but good intentions do not always make good policy; good results are also necessary.

With respect to each crime, is justice best served by having legislatures assign fixed penalties to that crime? Or should legislatures leave judges more or less free to tailor sentences to the aggravating and mitigating facts of each criminal case within a defined range?

There were numerous arguments with this article, both for and against. As members can probably tell, I am not in favour of mandatory minimum sentences, so I will quote from the parts that support my argument.

I do not have time, unfortunately, to go through some of the cases, but in the conclusion, it says:

Congress was right to be concerned about reducing sentencing disparity and ensuring that sentences are neither unduly lenient nor unduly harsh. Nonetheless, just as law should be tempered with equity, so should rigid sentencing rules leave room for adjustment in certain cases where a legislatively fixed sentence would be manifestly unjust. No statute can account for every variable in every case, and the attempt to do so with mandatory minimums has given rise to punishments in some small-scale drug possession cases that are completely out of whack with the purpose of the federal sentencing laws.

Again, I want to stay with cases in the United States. Over a number of years it has had its “three strikes and you're out” laws and some other mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have now proven to be not that effective.

There was an article on February 22, entitled “Texas an unlikely model for prison reform”. It is a California senator who quoted this, but the article states:

For over 30 years, spending on our prison system has steadily climbed from 3 percent of the state's operating budget to 11 percent. Even during the depth of the Great Recession, spending on prisons and jails increased while spending on education and health care was slashed. It continues to increase today. It doesn't have to be that way. There are alternatives, and unlikely as it might seem, Texas seems to be leading the way...

Among the members of his board of directors are national conservative leaders Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich.

That is to highlight the fact that it not just the New Democrats or Democrats or Liberals who are indicating that there should be a review of the mandatory minimum sentencing; it is also conservatives in the United States.

The article continues:

How is this happening? Texas is investing in alternatives to incarceration that are proving to be cheaper and more effective at keeping people out of prison. It is also doing a better job of rehabilitating people to keep them from reoffending and...back in prison.

Texas uses risk-assessment and better probation procedures to divert large numbers of nonviolent offenders away from the prison system, keeping them away from hard-core criminals. It requires strict implementation of victim-restitution measures, while offering alternatives to prison such as civil sanctions, drug courts and drug-abuse and mental health treatment. It also offers rehabilitation programs like job training for those in prison to prepare them to re-enter society. And Texas has invested heavily in reducing the caseloads of parole and probation officers so the state can keep better track of the people it supervises and help them move in a new direction.

Texas, which I think most people would agree has had a fairly strong approach to the criminal justice system, is implementing measures that do not rely on mandatory minimums and other such measures. It is actually looking at rehabilitation.

When we talk about prison reform, I want to reference Howard Sapers, the ombudsperson for prisons. For years, he has been raising the issues around how people are treated once they are in the prison system and how many of the things that happen do not contribute to keeping people out of jail once they are released. Many other voices out there are speaking up.

However, the last point I want to touch on is the failure of the current Conservative government to adequately address prevention measures, because the best measure in the justice system is to stop people from going to jail in the first place.

The Institute for the Prevention of Crime at the University of Ottawa has a number of resources, but it also has an article titled, “Building a safer Canada: effective planning for crime prevention”. In the introduction to this, it states:

Safety is a vital component of our quality of life. Our police and criminal justice systems play an essential role in helping to achieve these goals, and we should continue to do everything we can to help make them more responsive, efficient and effective.

However, there are no easy solutions to the problems of crime and victimization, and little evidence that simply relying on more enforcement and more punishment will significantly increase our individual and collective safety...

There is also a convincing body of evidence that prevention is an effective way to move forward. The concern is that Canada is not doing enough to make the best use of this knowledge and expertise—we need a sustained commitment to doing more to translate proven approaches into common practice.

Because my time is almost up, I do not have time to go through the whole article, but it has a framework for prevention planning. It says that there are five interconnected questions. One is understanding the problem and developing a vision, an action plan, and responsibility centres. Second is concentrating resources. Third is relying on evidence-based approaches. Fourth is assuming adequate and sustained support, and fifth is informing and engaging the public.

In conclusion, New Democrats support Bill C-35, but we look forward to a full review at committee.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a bit more time pursuing the issue of mandatory minimum sentences. The member noted in her speech that there was a body of academic literature that said that these were completely ineffective.

In reviewing the literature at the time we were reviewing what was then the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, in the fall of 2011, I could not find a single peer reviewed, academic paper that suggested any benefit whatsoever to mandatory minimum sentences. It was not just some academic papers, as far as I could find, but all of them.

I wonder if my friend has seen any evidence whatsoever that mandatory minimum sentences are anything other than, as she suggested the right-wing centre in the U.S. has now concluded, good intentions going toward an ineffective policy.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, the member is also a lawyer, so she has had some personal exposure to the criminal justice system.

Like many people, I did a Google search today in preparation for speaking. I was looking for both the pro and con arguments with regard to mandatory minimum sentences. Interestingly, the legal memorandum by the Heritage Foundation provides some arguments for and against. The problem is that in the United States, prosecutors are actually the ones making some determinations about mandatory minimums, because prosecutors are defining what the charge will be. Sometimes they are defining the charge so that it does not fall under a mandatory minimum. There are people somewhere else in the chain of decision- making in the United States who are making decisions about whether mandatory minimums will or will not apply. That has been raised as an issue in Congress. Although there are some opinions in favour, they have more to do with procedural things in the United States.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too listened with interest to the presentation by my friend, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I very much agree with her perspective with respect to mandatory minimum sentencing. However, I want to direct her specifically to proposed subsection 445.01(1), which sets the legal threshold that it has to be an act that is willful and without lawful excuse.

Would my friend like to comment on whether perhaps the reason the government is suggesting there should be a minimum sentence of six months is that it reflects the fact that it believes that a crime committed against a service animal is abhorrent and requires some kind of penalty that reflects society's abhorrence of the impact on service animals?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government, with its continued use of mandatory minimums, seems to be saying, in part, that it does not trust judges to review the evidence before them and use their knowledge, expertise, and long history in the courts to make the appropriate determination about what an appropriate sentence would be. By imposing mandatory minimums, in this particular case, it continues that line of reasoning and thought that seems to be evident in so many other pieces of legislation we have seen before the House.

Serious concerns have been raised, with regard to Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill that was referenced, and a number of other bills, that the Conservatives continue to undermine the ability of judges to make appropriate decisions.

If there are judges who are completely outside the norm in sentencing, there are other ways of dealing with it other than putting mandatory minimums in bill after bill.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for your indulgence and that of my colleagues as well. I know that our remarks must be relevant to the matter at hand; however, this is the first time I have risen to speak since the tragic events of last Wednesday. First and foremost, I simply want to thank the Sergeant-at-Arms and his team who, when it comes right down to it, saved our lives. I do not want to exaggerate, but that really is the case. I also want to thank everyone in my riding, Chambly—Borduas. We have received many emails over the past few days in a show of solidarity. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how proud I am, even more so than last week, to be able to represent my constituents in the House and speak on their behalf. I have found a positive side to this very difficult tragedy. I have come to realize how much of a privilege it is to be here for them and to continue this work.

Having said that, I will move on to today's debate on Bill C-35, which is known as Quanto's law because it is named after a police dog in Edmonton that was killed while a crime was in progress. As many of my colleagues have said, we support this bill because, really, who would not?

According to my latest information, Canada's Criminal Code is not quite up to date on animal cruelty compared to other countries like ours around the world. We have a lot of catching up to do. I know that over the past few years many of my NDP colleagues have introduced bills about this issue.

That is why, obviously, we support the bill. As I just said, who would not? However, we do have some major concerns, and unfortunately, they often come up whenever we are dealing with bills that would change the Criminal Code. The two issues we are concerned about are minimum sentences and consecutive sentences.

We just heard an excellent speech from my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan, and several other colleagues of mine, regarding minimum sentences. It is important to note once again that we are seeing this pattern more and more from this Conservative government. According to published articles on crime and the justice system, it is becoming increasingly clear that minimum sentencing is not producing the desired results. It is doing nothing to improve prevention, even though, at the end of the day, our main objective should be to ensure that future crimes are prevented.

If we take a closer look at minimum sentences, we find all kinds of other problems. One problem is quite common. In many of the government's proposals, the minimum sentences are sometimes lighter than what judges have imposed in some cases. We have a situation where the justice system has proven that imposing minimum sentences was unnecessary. This measure appears to be more politically motivated, to show that the government is trying to be “tough on crime”, as we often hear, but in fact, the justice system is already doing its job. Minimum sentences are being imposed in some situations where the justice system was already doing a good job and where the sentences imposed were sufficient.

Some discretion is being removed from the justice system. We could examine our system in Canada, or even comparable systems, such as those of the United States or England, and have a debate on the unique aspects of each system. Nonetheless, one aspect is comparable and that is the division of powers. Obviously, Parliament has a responsibility to enact laws, but the justice system has the responsibility to ensure their enforcement and their interpretation. Just because we are disappointed in how a law is interpreted, that does not always mean that it is Parliament's responsibility to change the law immediately.

The government wants to change legislation every time it disagrees with what the justice system is doing. We must ensure the independence and discretion of the justice system and not legislate on a case-by-base basis, because that is a very slippery slope. Unfortunately, this government does that far too often, especially when it comes to minimum sentences. It is a worrisome trend.

In some cases, we support these bills, because, contrary to what my colleague heckled earlier, we cannot be against what is right. For example, when it comes to victims' rights or animal cruelty, including cruelty against police service dogs in a criminal context, we cannot be opposed.

However, when this type of situation occurs, the Conservatives too often move time allocation or closure motions. A government minister asked us why we did not stop debating and immediately send the bill to committee if we were in favour of it.

The reason is quite simple. First, committee is not the place to debate with our colleagues opposite. There are sometimes debates with witnesses, since we do not necessarily agree with them. However, the primary purpose of committee is to learn from the expertise of witnesses so that we can better understand our own concerns. We are not all lawyers, and if we do not have the expertise to explain the subject matter in simple terms, we cannot make informed decisions and amend a bill if necessary.

Committee is therefore not the place to address our colleagues. Furthermore, as in the House, it is not allowed. However, in the House, we have the opportunity to hear Conservative members and members of other parties speak, to ask them questions and to hear their answers.

Unfortunately, the government is preventing us from voicing our opinions on a bill because it does not believe that we should speak about it if everyone supports it. Although we support the bill, we still have concerns about justice and crime issues, particularly with regard to minimum sentences, which are at the heart of this matter.

When we have the opportunity to ask our Conservative colleagues questions—and that is not the case—the time for debate is limited. Although we recognize how important and urgent the issue is in some cases, rather than just rushing the bill to committee, it is important that we all have the opportunity to speak, ask our questions and present our arguments. Committee is not the place for 308 members to discuss a bill.

That is why we have debates, and government members must stop downplaying their importance. It does not do justice to Parliament or the legislative process. It results in mistakes, for example bills that are thought to be unconstitutional or must be fixed in committee. If more fulsome debate were allowed, we could advance these arguments and avoid these problems.

In closing, I would like to say once again that my colleagues and I support this bill. I am saying so for the third time. Who would not?

However, as several of my colleagues also mentioned, these details matter to us. We have concerns about minimum sentences and consecutive sentences, which take away discretion or judicial authority. As legislators, we are beginning to take over the work of judges. That is not how the system is supposed to work. Although animal cruelty is terrible and we are pleased to see the government bring in legislation, we must nevertheless pay attention to the separation of powers.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

As he mentioned, the Conservative government has a habit of introducing bills in the House containing mandatory minimums, including omnibus bills it has introduced since 2012. The NDP is against animal cruelty. There are many people who have spoken in favour of this bill, including Edmonton police officers. We support sending this bill to committee.

That said, I would like to know whether my hon. colleague could talk about the bills containing mandatory minimums that the Conservative government has introduced in the past. I would like him to talk about the negative effects that these mandatory minimums can have on our legal process.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

She mentioned omnibus bills. We all remember Bill C-10, which illustrates the points I raised earlier regarding the importance of having a full debate in the House and the opportunity to speak to all the different aspects of the bill.

As for the member's question about mandatory minimums, indeed, this is something we are seeing more and more, and it is one of our two main concerns with this bill. Since I was elected in 2011, we have seen mandatory minimums for every issue associated with the Criminal Code.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan spoke about the chain of decision making; she spoke about prosecutors and judges. That is what is important. Imposing minimum sentencing seems to ignore the existing judicial hierarchy. That is troubling and problematic. Judges and lawyers are there to look at cases one at a time. If we create broad legislation that imposes minimum sentences, we could be looking at some problematic situations. It will also impact the prison system. We need to allow judges to make that distinction instead of having to navigate the murky waters of government legislation. However, as my colleague also noted, despite our support, we also need to be aware of these problems and bring them up in committee.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful comments on this bill. I would like to ask him about mandatory minimum sentences, which are once again provided for in this Conservative bill. In a way, they undermine the goal of the bill, which is to ensure that there are adequate and serious penalties for people who harm service animals.

A recent documentary called State of Incarceration, which aired on CBC's Doc Zone and was produced by a constituent of mine, very graphically showed how mandatory minimum sentences and other kinds of supposedly tough-on-crime legislation in fact undermine the criminal justice system. They lead to overcrowding in our prisons and less support and assistance for criminals and people who are incarcerated to be rehabilitated, get back into the community, and ultimately become contributing and productive members of society.

My colleague may not have seen it, but can he comment on the intent of this video, which was to shine a light of this undermining of effective criminal justice systems? Even the U.S., which pioneered this tough-on-crime agenda, is turning back and going for rehabilitation as a more cost-effective measure to treat serious crime.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

Unfortunately, I have not seen that documentary; however, now that I know about it, I am very interested in seeing it.

Even though I have not seen the documentary, it is becoming increasingly clear that minimum sentences are not the solution. The issue with the way the government approaches the debate about prevention and rehabilitation is that when it hears those words, “prevention” and “rehabilitation”, it assumes they mean befriending criminals. What is interesting—and the government always forgets this—is that prevention and rehabilitation are good for the safety of our communities. Rehabilitating criminals and focusing on prevention will protect victims and prevent future victims. Those are the kinds of things that lawyers, prosecutors and judges can take into consideration.

Of course, as legislators, we have a responsibility to make the necessary adjustments. However, too often the government seems to want to take a generalized approach whenever something does not go its way. That is not a responsible way to work, and that is what concerns us.

Still, the fact that the government is supporting service animals and does not want to see animal cruelty in general gives us reason to support this bill.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the member opposite for bringing forward a bill that takes into account a need to respond to the killing or injuring of a service animal.

As a compassionate community, we are well aware of the many times that animals have come to the assistance of people and have served as law enforcement animals, military service animals, or service animals that support persons with disabilities. The stories are many and legendary.

One example is that during Hurricane Katrina, a 19-year-old dog saved his 80-year-old owner from drowning. A 19-year-old dog is perhaps even older in years than some of us here in the House. This particular situation was very poignant inasmuch as the elderly gentleman, George Mitchell, said that he would have given up his struggle against the surging waters of Katrina had it not been for the actions of his long-time pet, his long-time friend. Clearly there is a sentient reality to animals, and we have to be very cognizant of that.

There is also the example of Yoshi, a police service dog in Waterloo region. Yoshi had served the community since his deployment in 2009 and was known as a top cop. He was highly skilled in capturing suspects, finding narcotics, and finding missing persons. This last skill of finding missing persons touches us closely. We think of elderly people who have gone missing and children who are lost. Service dogs are incredibly important and instrumental in addressing those kinds of situations.

Bill C-35 is called “Quanto's law” in remembrance of Quanto, the police service dog killed in Edmonton trying to stop a fleeing suspect. The assailant was charged with animal cruelty and sentenced to 26 months in prison. The decision in this case was made at the discretion of a judge and was based on years of jurisprudence, existing law, and the evidence presented in court. That is how it should be. A sentence should be determined in a court of law by an experienced judge in an effort to ensure the sentence fairly reflects the crime. That is at the centre of our concerns about Bill C-35.

Bill C-35 is laudable in its sentiment, and we should indeed be concerned about animal cruelty. Section 445 of the Criminal Code sets out penalties and fines for those guilty of injuring all animals other than cattle.

I want to be very clear: New Democrats condemn all forms of animal cruelty, a position that we have supported for a long time. We have expressed those concerns over the past number of years regarding this Parliament's inability to truly protect animals. Members may recall some of these situations, because at present, animal cruelty crimes are considered property offences. It is not an offence to train animals to fight other animals or to receive money from the fighting of animals. There is no specific offence for particularly violent or brutal crimes against animals, and no additional protection is afforded to law enforcement animals.

Bill C-35 seeks to change that by bringing forward specific and additional protection for law enforcement and service animals. However, we have to look carefully at what is proposed in this legislation.

Bill C-35 would create a new offence, as I said, for killing or injuring a service animal, a law enforcement animal, or a military animal while the animal is on duty. It proposes a minimum sentence of six months if a law enforcement animal is killed by an individual while that individual is perpetrating an offence. It proposes that sentences imposed on a person be served consecutive to any other punishment imposed on that person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

Like all Conservative legislation, the devil is in the details. This is a laudable bill but it has been tainted and undermined by introducing minimum sentencing, which clearly reflects what we can only call a repressive agenda. It does not take into account that we have courts and jurisprudence with respect to those courts and sentencing. We once again see a government showing its desire to deprive those courts of their discretion in sentencing, which is a very important part of a workable and intelligent justice system.

I am certain that every member of the House knows that there are circumstances. There is nothing that is absolute. There is no situation that can be absolutely deemed like any other. We have many examples of that in the courts. We simply cannot forget that and set it aside.

The Conservatives should also be aware of the consequences of minimum and consecutive sentencing on the criminal justice system. In this case, we have to hear from the experts about the consequences of minimum and consecutive sentencing. That is why we are recommending that the bill be studied carefully in committee. We need to hear from experts on what the consequences of this particular legislation could be and would be. We have to pay attention to those experts and to warnings from the courts.

I am sure members are well aware that in January of this year a B.C. judge challenged Ottawa's tough on crime legislation and found that mandatory minimum sentences violated the charter rights of those being condemned. I am concerned that Bill C-35 would also face such challenges. The Supreme Court is looking at a specific B.C. case regarding a criminal who was convicted of drug trafficking. In that case, Judge Galati said that in that situation a one-year minimum sentence would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited under section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At the time, Judge Galati declared the law in question to be of no force and effect in B.C. That is why it is now being heard by the Supreme Court. It is important that we wait for the decision and rely on the wisdom of that court before we go ahead with any other legislation that could be challenged under the charter.

The lawyer in that case said that mandatory minimum sentences are problematic because they remove the discretion of judges. He said that the federal government's enactment of mandatory minimum sentences was more political than reasonable. This notion that being tough on crime would somehow make us safer is a misconception. We are no safer now than we were 10 years ago. That is a simple fact.

Other jurisdictions have eliminated or have begun to reduce mandatory minimums, most notably the United States. They are moving away from those practices because they are found to be ineffective. Most Commonwealth countries with mandatory minimums have an escape clause so that judges can bypass the minimums when they deem it necessary. Therefore, we are going in the opposite direction of much of the rest of the world at a time when our crime rate is historically low.

Finally, I would like to say that New Democrats, of course, condemn all forms of animal cruelty. We have held that position for a very long time and have supported legislation such as Bill C-232 and Bill C-592.

We do believe that this particular bill is undermining what is otherwise a laudable idea. We have to be very careful of that. We have to be very cognizant of that.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remember a few years ago, in Toronto, when Brigadier, a beautiful Belgian cross horse, was struck and killed by someone fleeing in a getaway car. It shocked and outraged the entire community.

My community of Toronto was shocked and horrified just a couple of weeks ago when animal services announced that a black Lab puppy was in their care. It was the most severely abused animal they had ever seen. It had acid burns, broken bones and internal injuries. Clearly all protections for animals, especially service and companion animals, need to be improved, as the member for London—Fanshawe said. I put forward Bill C-232 to improve our animal cruelty laws, and we have not found support on the other side of the House.

Why does the member think that the government side would not support general laws to improve the welfare of animals and to improve the struggle against animal cruelty, but that it would overreact and in fact undermine the situation with some of the provisions in Bill C-35?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very strange and bizarre contradiction that we see from the government.

I was in the House, as was the member, when a number of bills came forward in an effort to ensure our cruelty laws were updated. I take special note of Bill C-232, a bill the member had a great deal to do with. I do not understand why the Conservative government did not support any of those efforts. It would seem that it may have been influenced by outside interests that perhaps put pressure on them to overlook the reality of the kind of cruelty that my colleague described in regard to the Labrador puppy.

In this particular case, there does seem to be an overreaction. I think it has a great deal to do with public perception, the way the public and the media reacted to the very unfortunate case of this particular dog. It was unfortunate. All cruelty to all creatures is absolutely unacceptable. However, we have to come back to what we know and what we understand, and respect for our courts and respect for the kinds of things that work in terms of sentencing. This is not it.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with crime in Canada at a 40-year low, why does the member think the federal government would spend hundreds of millions of our tax dollars building 2,700 new prison cells, which it clearly intends to fill with its so-called tough on crime agenda. This, at a time when its counterparts, the Republicans in the southern U.S., have come to see the light of day and have recognized that in fact this not only makes no sense when it comes to good criminal justice but in fact it is bad economics.

It undermines the ability of a society to rehabilitate people, to get them back and effectively working in society, rather than paying for their upkeep in the criminal justice system when probably the vast majority have no need to be there whatsoever.

Can the member explain why our government seems to be so wrong-headed in this regard?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I am at a loss to understand what motivates some of the thinking and legislation that comes out of the current Conservative government. As my colleague pointed out, crime is at a 40-year low. We should use this opportunity to start looking specifically at prevention and rehabilitation: rehabilitation for those who are on the wrong path, and prevention for youth and people who are vulnerable in the community.

I would like to mention that a significant number of people who are incarcerated are mentally ill. However, we do not have money for mental health or community support, but we have a lot of money for jails. In this particular case, it is the provinces that would be footing the bill. In my own city of London, Ontario, the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre is crammed full to the point where violence and desperate behaviour is rampant.

We have to do better. Surely we can.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will follow in my colleagues' footsteps because we have just gone through some unusual events on Parliament Hill, events that affect not only politicians but all Canadians.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those whose priority is our safety and that of our assistants and the people who work in this magnificent parliamentary precinct, which includes the Centre Block and the Confederation Building, where my offices are located. These have been difficult times.

The labour relations lawyer in me feels compelled to ask everyone to take good care of themselves. People who experience a traumatic event can experience different after-effects, and of course my thoughts are with our Sergeant-at-Arms. I hope that he is taking care of himself and that others are taking care of him too. Everyone has gone through a very trying time.

That said, this is an interesting time to rise in the House to discuss Bill C-35 as the official opposition's justice critic.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who took care of this file so that I could carry out a thorough review of other bills. She has done an extraordinary job of helping our caucus colleagues understand the issues with this bill.

I listened to my colleagues earlier, particularly my colleague from Parkdale—High Park, who is an animal lover, and, I would think, not the only one in this House.

It is ironic that I have to rise in this House to speak to this bill, because those who know me will know, on the one hand, just how much I love animals, and on the other hand, how I would not want anyone at all to be hurt in any way.

These harmless, defenceless creatures deserve the same protection that we afford to children and people with mental or physical disabilities. We have to make sure we protect those most vulnerable in our society and those who cannot protect themselves.

It is ironic, because this bill has come about in much the same way as many Conservative bills seem to come about, namely, as a reaction to specific situations, which always raises many questions in my mind.

When I was a law student at the University of Ottawa a few decades ago, I had an affinity for criminal law. I found it extremely interesting, as most law students do when they enter the faculty of law. They often think they will become the greatest criminal lawyers the world has ever known.

I became a labour lawyer, which shows that what may seem extraordinarily exciting when we are at school is in fact different in reality. Criminal law is not an easy domain and I commend all crown prosecutors, police officers, defence lawyers, probation officers and judges who work in this area and who are called to determine the right thing to do in each case.

I realize that the crime rate is going down and that the nature of crimes is changing. We can always get statistics to say what we want them to say. On our side, we might say that we do not need to be too harsh or build prisons since the crime rate is going down. However, our Conservative friends, who do not seem to have anything to say today, will probably say that the crime rate is going down because they are extremely tough. Again, we can get statistics to say what we want.

However, when I was studying law, the basic principles of sentencing stuck with me. In that regard, I am deeply concerned about all these bills. It is not my socialist heart that is bleeding, but that of a person to whom it is important that the Criminal Code, the country's law governing acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, explain the decisions taken by our society on punishing these acts—criminal acts in this case.

We have always been told by our criminal law and sentencing experts that there are basic principles that we cannot circumvent.

I am not going to lecture you because that is not my style. However, we sometimes forget. When we forget, we have a tendency of repeating past mistakes or making other mistakes that could be avoided if we were to examine the simple facts. There are parts of the Criminal Code that we do not often hear about in the House. I am thinking of the entire part that starts with section 716, for example. It covers sentencing and explains the basic principles that apply to sentencing.

In the short time available to me, I would like to highlight a few of the very fundamental sections that a court must consider when it is preparing either to hand down a sentence or to make a decision about an accused. I would point out that one of the very few changes being made to section 718 is the addition of aggravating factors to the section on sentencing.

718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

This principle is often forgotten by our friends opposite.

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community.

With respect to this last point, all types of restorative justice come into play.

Section 718.01 concerns crimes against youth under the age of eighteen years.

Section 718.1 is extremely important. This section is often the kicker. It is at the heart of our beliefs as the official opposition in this House. Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code states:

718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Notice that it says “the offender” and not “the offenders”. That is where jurisprudence comes in, with respect to the principle that each case is unique.

Section 718.2 states:

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing...

What follows is a list that has grown over the years under the Conservatives and in response to some realities in society. The section continues:

(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

Once again, there is the principle that every case is unique. Proportionality must be taken into account. Criminal justice must be applied in the same way for each person who commits the same crime, under the same circumstances. During sentencing arguments, the parties will point out aggravating factors or factors in favour of the accused. The section continues:

(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

My colleagues have already said this so I will not repeat. Second reading should not be used to repeat the same principle, but to make specific points. This stage is extremely important. As I was telling one of my colleagues earlier, as justice critic, and since we support this bill, I will have the benefit of having heard my colleagues' thoughts when we examine the bill in committee with experts and witnesses. I would have liked to have heard more from the other side, since everyone is capable of presenting persuasive arguments now and then. However, you cannot win anyone over with silence.

The Criminal Code states:

(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances;

We know this. There is an enormous amount of literature and many analyses have been conducted on the usefulness of minimum sentences and the legality of consecutive sentences.

Furthermore, some decisions in similar cases have gone as far as the Supreme Court. I urge my colleagues to be cautious—and that is what we will do in committee—and to ensure that this bill complies with all of the relevant principles of law.

I would also suggest that all members of the House read section 716 and subsequent sections of the Criminal Code on sentencing. They will see that our Criminal Code already has a strong foundation of principles that apply.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her wonderful speech. As she mentioned, the NDP will support this bill so that we can examine it in committee and hear what experts have to say about it.

Do the Conservatives need to introduce a minimum sentence in this bill, which seeks to protect animals trained by police officers? Is it really necessary to include a minimum sentence in this bill, which, we all agree, seeks to protect animals?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, one we will probably ask of those who testify before the committee.

I am sticking my neck out a bit, but I will keep an open mind and maybe someone can convince me otherwise. What I am prepared to say is that when I look at the jurisprudence for similar crimes or cases like this, I rarely see sentences that are shorter than the minimum set out in Bill C-35.

The same thing happened with another bill, which was also a private member's bill, about child abduction. I asked a victim who testified before the committee if the fact that the Conservative government's minimum was lower than what the jurisprudence showed for such cases was problematic. In other words, the government wanted the minimum sentence to be four years, but the courts were already handing down sentences of eight, 10 or even 14 years in such cases.

Legislators do not talk for the sake of talking. It is a basic argument used in court. I can easily picture a defence lawyer saying that the judge is being too harsh and that is why the government legislated a lower minimum. The victim found that very unsettling and definitely did not want to see that happen.

It can be good to leave such things to the court's discretion because it knows and applies the principles of Criminal Code sections 716 and on. In many cases, it comes down to information. Members of the public might not like it, but if they had all of the facts of the case, including the aggravating and mitigating factors, they would understand why a particular sentence is given. Of course there can be mistakes, but that, as some judges will tell you, is what appeals are for.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue in the vein of mandatory minimum sentences.

Earlier in my speech I quoted from an article by the Heritage Foundation in a legal memorandum of February 10. In this memorandum, it is contended that mandatory minimum sentences did not reduce crime. University of Minnesota law professor, Michael Tonry, has concluded, “the weight of the evidence clearly shows that enactment of mandatory penalties has either no demonstrable marginal deterrent effects or short-term effects that rapidly waste away”. The article states, “Statutes imposing mandatory minimum sentences result in arbitrary and severe punishments that undermine the public’s faith in America’s criminal justice system”.

Could the member comment on that? Does she agree that mandatory minimums can undermine the faith of citizens in the justice system?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to answer that question with something that former Supreme Court of Canada justice Major said about minimum sentencing when he appeared before one of our committees. I want to make one thing clear: I do not want anyone in the House to think that I am saying that minimum sentences are strictly illegal. I am wondering if they are useful.

Justice Major explained to us that a mandatory minimum sentence that is reasonable in its length could function quite well, and the courts may agree. That said, minimum sentencing is not recommended, partly for the reasons she mentioned.

I do not think that anyone in the House believes that a criminal, before committing a crime, walks around with a copy of the Criminal Code under his arm, saying that he knows how he is going to be sentenced. I would be very surprised if anyone believes that. They need to stop lying to themselves because that is not at all what is happening.

That said, society has a responsibility to determine how it will punish certain behaviours. The problem with the Conservative government is that it just wants to give a certain impression by telling the public that it has implemented a mandatory minimum sentence. What the government does not say is that the mandatory minimum sentence is lower than what the courts were already imposing. It is merely a question of impressions. I do not think that we should be playing with the rules of law, with criminal sentencing principles in Canada.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to rise in the House to speak to a bill. Before I begin, however, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the events that transpired here last week, because I thought about them a lot over the weekend. Most of all, I thought about the tragedy, the death of Corporal Cirillo, and the impact it has had on his family and his son. I would simply like to add that my thoughts and prayers are with his family, and I extend my condolences to them.

I attended various events in my riding this past weekend, and it is always a pleasure to do so. Many people came to see me in Wakefield to say they stand in solidarity with me, our team, our leader and all members of this House after the tragic events of last week. I thank them for offering their sympathy, for supporting me and for expressing how much hope they have in our work here.

That said, once again we have another bill that blurs the lines between the government, politics and the legislature.

This is an issue that the government has brought several times to the House in legislation. Time and time again, we are the only party that seems to stand up for this basic principle that it is judges who are best placed to decide what a sentence should be.

During a trial, what goes on is questioning. It is almost like a form of investigation. Through this process, in what I would call a dialectical process of exchange, facts come up and it is discovered that things are not as simple as they appeared before. The situation appears different under questioning, and there needs to be a process in place so that those things that are revealed during a trial are taken into consideration in sentencing.

This is a principle that is fundamental. It is also a principle of how democracy should work, which is that there should be a very long arm between the legislators and the government in place on the one hand and what happens on judges' benches on the other.

Bill C-35 was announced in the 2013 throne speech, so it is not very surprising that we have it before us today. The bill proposes Criminal Code amendments that would create a new offence specifically prohibiting the killing, injuring, poisoning or maiming of trained animals being used to help law enforcement officers, persons with disabilities or the Canadian Armed Forces.

I have to say that I have no problem with the principle of protecting animals that do this kind of work. On the contrary, I really like animals. I have had animals around me ever since I was a young boy. I learned to respect them and to see them as our companions on the beautiful planet we share with them.

It is commendable to have legislation to protect them further. However, I see that the government is being contradictory. Not so long ago, we introduced bills to do exactly this: improve legislation on protecting abused animals. I do not know why, perhaps it is simply because it was not the government's idea, but the Conservatives voted against our bills. How can they vote against this principle and then turn around and propose the same principle? On this side of the House, when we see such inconsistency, it makes us wonder. What is behind this? What are they trying to get passed that might not have anything to do with the well-being of animals?

This bill is meant to improve legislation. For example, persons convicted of such an offence could face up to five years in prison, with—and I want to emphasize this—a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison in cases where a law enforcement animal is killed while assisting a law enforcement officer in enforcing the law and the offence is prosecuted by indictment. If a law enforcement animal is injured or killed while on duty, the sentence for that offence would be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender arising out of the same event.

This is definitely a case of interfering with judicial independence. Judges make decisions that they consider to be appropriate. After all, judges are not appointed just for the fun of it. It is clear that we must respect their work and their experience.

Therefore, it is a bit odd that the provisions of Bill C-35 do not change the sentences and fines set out in section 445 of the Criminal Code for all animals that are not cattle. The Edmonton police department seems to be supporting the bill, and it seems reasonable to believe that the other police forces, as well as individuals with service animals, will want to support this bill. That is true.

However, the fact remains that there are two very serious problems with this bill. As I mentioned earlier, it introduces a six-month minimum sentence and consecutive sentences if a law enforcement animal is killed when a crime is committed.

Consequently, it would be good to hear in committee what the experts and other civil society organizations have to say about these two issues. However, the government must listen to them. If we go to committee, which we would like to do, consultations must be robust and rigorous and expert opinions must be considered. There is a problem, though.

Time and time again, what we have seen is that when we support a bill going to committee, either the committee process is shortened or we do not have access to all of the experts or to a healthy debate. Additionally, when we propose amendments that would help the piece of legislation to be enacted and to be balanced, every single amendment from the opposition is opposed. That does not seem to be particularly reasonable when, after hearing from all of these experts, it is clear that the proposed legislation could be improved.

In closing, I have a few fundamental questions for the Conservatives.

For example, why does the government want to once again remove discretionary authority from the courts? That is a basic question but the government still has not answered it. Also, why does this government always try to amend good bills by inserting unreasonable clauses, such as consecutive sentences? Have the Conservatives assessed the impact that including a minimum sentence and consecutive sentences will have on the justice and prison systems? Once again, we have not received any answers in this regard. Finally, why do the Conservatives think it is necessary to include a minimum sentence in this bill?

These are reasonable questions. The problem is that we are the only ones talking about this bill. We are the only ones asking questions about this bill. Nevertheless, we are here to do that. How can we get the answers we need to really know whether the government is serious about wanting a common sense bill?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Pontiac, who does an extraordinary job. I do not envy the size of his riding. That being said, I know how involved he is in his riding.

I appreciated what he said in his speech. I also appreciated the fact that he mentioned that we are the only ones who are taking action in this regard. Earlier, I heard the minister of state tell us that we could all support this bill and send it directly to committee, as though that would ensure that it would be passed more quickly.

I assume that my colleague is aware that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has a lot on its plate already. I am thinking of the victims bill of rights, the new regulatory authority associated with Bill S-2 and all the private members' bills that are currently before us.

What is wrong with wanting to debate these issues in this House and to hear different opinions on some specific aspects of the bill? For some, that means the protection of animals. For others, like me, that means the protection of animals, of course, but also some provisions of the Criminal Code as a whole. For others, it means other things. This allows us to pass more clearly defined legislation.

I would like to hear his comments on that.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague from Gatineau for her question.

I want to say that she does an excellent job on this file and on all justice matters. She may not envy the size of my riding, but I do not envy all of the work that she has on her plate. It is incredible to see how hard she works.

I think it is clear that this government has a lack of respect for the debates in this House and for the views of the official opposition. The bottom line is that I represent my constituents. They often share their concerns with me about justice bills. Fortunately, the member for Gatineau stands up for the interests of people in the region on justice matters.

In light of what the Conservatives have proposed, I think it would be reasonable to take a moment, to take a little time to think about how all of these bills will work together. Where is there overlap and what can be simplified? We need to look at everything as a whole. I am not convinced that the government is doing that.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for that informative speech.

One of the issues that has come up with regard to animal cruelty and this particular piece of legislation is that we had two private member's bills proposed by New Democrats before the House.

One is Bill C-232, which was introduced by my colleague for Parkdale—High Park. This bill would remove animals from the section of the Criminal Code on property and create a new section for animal cruelty offences. In short, animals would be considered people and not property. Part of the reason the bill was introduced is that the current definition of “animal” is inadequate.

The second is Bill C-592, which was introduced by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. This bill seeks to better define what an animal is under the Criminal Code and what is meant by “intended acts of cruelty”.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that although the Conservatives have been in government since 2006, they still failed to introduce good legislation with regard to animal cruelty.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been advances made in science and research in the last 20 years about how animals feel pain, how they feel suffering, their brain capacity, the impacts of abuse upon them, how the relationship between animals and human beings has changed and how, for example, certain animals can be used for therapy. That is quite a new area of scientific research and medical research. It is only natural that we take into consideration these new findings and that we review our archaic laws with respect to defining what an animal is and the rights that an animal has.

The reality is that we share this planet. There are more animals on this planet than human beings. We need to conceptually shift the way that our civilization understands that relationship. I think that begins with reviewing laws with respect to the definition of animals and ensuring that their rights are protected.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I acknowledge the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, I must inform her that I will have to interrupt her around two o'clock for statements by members.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first time rising in the House since the events of last week, I would simply like to take this opportunity to commend the work of our police officers, our House of Commons security forces and the RCMP, and all their courageous deeds.

On behalf of the people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, I wish to extend our sincere condolences to Nathan Cirillo's family.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals), a Conservative bill that has passed first reading in the House.

I am proud to say that I really hope this bill is examined in committee so that we can hear what many experts and stakeholders think on this matter.

We need to have a closer look at this bill in order to revisit the two most important problems in the bill: the introduction of minimum sentences and consecutive sentences.

In concrete terms, this bill amends section 445 of the Criminal Code by providing for a new offence when a service animal or a law enforcement or military animal is killed or injured in the line of duty. The bill also provides for a minimum sentence of six months if a law enforcement animal is killed in the commission of an offence. It also makes the sentences imposed on a person consecutive to another sentence imposed for any other offence arising out of the same events.

I think the Government of Canada needs to examine bills dealing with animal cruelty. The 157 police dogs in service in Canada and the 53 teams of dogs and trainers with the Canada Border Services Agency are important to Canada's security. They are important resources for our police officers and those who patrol our borders.

There are two important points to note about this bill: it creates another minimum sentence and it makes changes regarding consecutive sentences.

Before I continue, I would like to talk about the current legislative provisions related to animal cruelty. It might be interesting for Canadians to know that presently, according to sections 444 and 445 of the Criminal Code, anyone commits an offence who wilfully kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures cattle or who, wilfully and without lawful excuse, kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures domestic animals.

Subsection 429(2) of the Criminal Code also provides a defence.

(2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under sections 430 to 446 where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

The Criminal Code also sets out some provisions concerning animal cruelty, including section 445.1, under which it is an offence to cause unnecessary pain to an animal.

I would remind the House that the NDP introduced a number of bills designed to amend Canadian laws concerning animal cruelty.

In particular, I would like to mention the work of the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park, who introduced Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Criminal Code concerning cruelty to animals in order to repeal animal cruelty provisions that are included in the part of the Criminal Code that governs animal well-being, acknowledging that they can feel pain.

Interestingly, data from new scientific studies show that animals can feel pain. An interesting aspect of the bill introduced by my New Democratic colleague from Parkdale—High Park is that these changes will better protect strays and wild animals. We know that existing laws do not protect them well enough.

Before question period starts, I would like to comment briefly on Bill C-592, which was introduced by my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and is also designed to protect animals from cruelty.

For those following today's debate, it would be interesting to get more information on these bills and support the work of these members so that these bills can move forward and provide better protection for animals in Canada.

I know that I will have a little more time after question period to make my case, but I would like to talk about mandatory minimum sentences because this is not the only Conservative bill that includes a mandatory minimum sentence. According to the Canadian Bar Association, there are now at least 57 offences with mandatory minimum sentences, while in 2005, there were only 29. We are very concerned about that.

I look forward to continuing my remarks after question period.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles will have three minutes remaining to conclude her speech when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the idea behind Bill C-35—protecting service and law enforcement animals—is a good one.

The NDP is in favour of studying the bill because law enforcement animals are often injured by criminals who could have injured a police officer. Quite often, a police dog is stabbed or shot instead of the police officer. If the criminal had done the same thing to an officer, he would be accused of attempted murder of a police officer. However, since the individual shot at a law enforcement animal, the line of thinking seems to be that he was just shooting at an animal, which is not the same thing. That is why we need more specific protection for these animals.

Service animals are also becoming more common in society. I am not just talking about guide dogs for the blind. For instance, therapy animals give autistic children contact with the real world. Clearly, these animals are not just stray dogs. They may become the eyes of a blind person or the opportunity for an autistic child to communicate and connect with society as a whole. For these reasons, these animals need very specific protections.

Hurting any animal for fun, deliberately and unnecessarily, is terrible, cruel and mean. We should not tolerate that type of behaviour in our society. However, we need to recognize that the harm caused to our society in general when a service or law enforcement animal is injured is a more significant crime.

Personally, I like service dogs. I am always tempted to pet guide dogs whenever I see them. I know you must never do so, but I am always tempted. I almost always have some chocolate in my pockets. Unfortunately, the member for Terrebonne—Blainville takes them from me, which is good for me and works for her. However, I could easily see myself giving a chocolate to a police dog or horse. The police officer might not be okay with that, but I would really like to do that. I adore animals and would never hurt them.

It is important to discuss this bill in committee with experts and with people in these situations, so they can tell us when it is really important to give these animals special protection in the Criminal Code. We need to have this discussion, which is especially important now because these animals are being used more and more. Unfortunately, some terrorist attacks have been committed using explosives. Sniffer dogs are one of the primary resources used to protect the public from these attacks with explosives.

These animals can also help with certain social phenomena, such as children with autism. We want to reintegrate these children into society, and service dogs are being used more and more to help with this. They are also being called upon more and more to help seniors. There will be many such animals, and they will become more and more helpful. Depriving someone who needs the assistance of a service animal is appalling. That is a serious crime. Attacking someone's animal is the same as attacking the person, since the animal is like an extension of the person, helping them with their senses or their mobility.

Clearly, then, yes, it is important to protect these animals, but as usual, the NDP has a few concerns regarding the minimum penalties. This will be discussed in committee.

I have the sinking feeling that the government is not listening to the Supreme Court when it renders decisions or to the great legal minds when they say that minimum sentences do not work. We should let the judges do their jobs and not try to give them so little discretion that they feel uncomfortable.

All of the courts, including the Supreme Court, have rendered decisions before. I am thinking, for example, of the minimum sentence for possessing a prohibited weapon. Let us look at one of the cases on which a judge ruled. An individual went to visit friends and they were a bit drunk. They were having fun. One of them pulled out an illegal revolver and began playing around with it. Another friend filmed the whole thing on his telephone. The person who was holding the weapon committed a criminal offence. He was charged and faced five years in prison because that is the minimum sentence.

The judge said that it was clear that this person was not particularly bright, and everyone can agree that what he did was not a good idea. However, putting an individual in prison for five years because he played around with an illegal revolver at a friend's home does not make sense.

The judge said that he was not going to take into account the Criminal Code provisions dealing with possession of a prohibited firearm. I am sorry, but he was right. Imagine putting someone in prison for doing something stupid for 15 seconds. That person did not threaten anyone with a firearm and did not commit armed robbery. He simply held a firearm when he was a bit drunk at a party and was filmed doing so.

One of my colleagues from British Columbia was saying that a minimum sentence should be imposed for kidnapping a minor. We want to protect children and doing so is a good thing. However, he proposed a rather harsh prison sentence, and that could cause problems.

A young man who is 18 years old and therefore considered an adult has a 16-year-old girlfriend and they break up. He is not happy. He wants to talk to her, so he takes her by the arm and drags her to his car. That becomes kidnapping because it involves an act of violence. He dragged her to the car by force. Clearly, this young man has problems and needs to change his behaviour. He completely deserves to get a strict talking to by a judge.

Still, do insensitivity and boorish conduct merit 15 years in prison? If a young man, just 18 years old, snaps and does something stupid like this, should he be sent to jail for 15 years? That does not make sense. The punishment has to fit the crime.

That is why we are against minimum sentences. We have to let judges judge. They are the ones who hear all of the information about the case and every possible defence.

If a young man kidnaps his girlfriend because he wants to force her to listen to him, not a lot can be said in his defence. However, he might say that he is in university and will do volunteer work. He might ask for a lesser sentence so that his whole life does not end up going down the drain because of that one time he did the stupidest thing imaginable. That kind of behaviour does not deserve the social stigma associated with a disproportionate prison sentence.

We have every reason to send this bill to committee, where members can listen to what the expert witnesses have to say. One of these days, the government will have to listen to the message judges have been sending them about how displeased they are with minimum sentences. The government will have to listen to that message, pay attention and act accordingly.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time understanding the NDP sense of justice when it comes to sentencing for crimes that are committed.

The NDP seems to blame the government. In fact, it is because sentences from the judges who sit on the benches, in so many cases, do not reflect the severity of the crime. I will give a good example, and I know this one personally.

Up until the year 2000, the sentence for killing while impaired was 0 to 14 years. The sentences given were always in the one- to three-year range. That was expanded to zero to life in prison, where factors were present. The average sentence given is still one to three years. No matter how many times someone has been convicted or suspended, if they are out driving and kill someone, they are still getting the same sentences.

Something is not being addressed here.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by the member's remarks because self-induced intoxication is not a defence. If a person gets himself intoxicated and kills someone, that is premeditated murder punishable by life in prison. The minimum sentence is 25 years, which means he is condemned to life and will spend 25 years in jail.

I do not know that particular case, but self-induced intoxication is not an acceptable defence. The Supreme Court stated as much in the case of a man who got himself intoxicated and raped an 88-year-old woman. Just imagine. In his defence, the individual said that he drank so much he became mentally ill. The insanity plea was rejected. People who deliberately get themselves intoxicated will be found fully responsible for actions they commit while intoxicated. That makes sense.

I do not know the case, and I would be happy to talk about it with the member, but I do know that self-induced intoxication is not an acceptable defence.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, for his speech. I have spoken to this government bill, Bill C-35. We have spent several days and hours on it. In the meantime, we have a budget implementation omnibus bill that we have asked the government to split so that we can discuss it in greater detail.

Is the hon. member not a bit concerned about the fact that we are taking so much time to discuss Bill C-35? I am not trying to take away from its importance, but there seems to be an imbalance in the priorities for this country, whether we are talking about the economy, job creation or adequate public services. Right now we are talking about Bill C-35. Could I have the hon. member's comments on this?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with omnibus bills is that they contain 20 to 30 statutes. If we could discuss each one, we could support or reject each one. In the case of an omnibus bill, even if there are aspects that we find worthwhile, we are forced to reject them because there are other aspects that we simply cannot support. That is the problem with omnibus bills. They get pushed through far too quickly.

To come back to the bill before us, I would like to see more bills that are better focused. I must say that when I go door to door and I walk with people, it is surprising to me how many people have dogs and cats. Some people even have snakes and lizards as pets. Companion animals are important. We will listen to the criticisms and we will respond to them.

The problem is not that we are spending too much time on this bill. The problem is that we do not spend a reasonable amount of time on the omnibus bills. In fact, far too often what happens in the House is that the government imposes closure. That means we have to vote in a hurry on 30 or so statutes that are poorly cobbled together in a single bill.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to stand in the House to represent the people of Timmins and the James Bay region as we deal with this bill, Bill C-35, Quanto's law. The bill would bring in mandatory minimum sentences for people who are mean to police dogs.

We have spent a lot of time in this House talking about police dogs, and we have seen the government members sit together and get very teary-eyed when they talk about the treatment of police dogs.

It is seven years almost to day that we stood in this House on another motion, Jordan's principle, which passed on December 7, 2007. It was named after Jordan River Anderson from the Norway House Cree first nation, a young child who had never been able to go home because of his complex medical needs. The federal government refused to pay for his health coverage unless he was in a foster care situation.

Jordan's principle is that all children in Canada, regardless of their race, have a right to equitable health care. The House of Commons stood up, just as it will probably stand up on Quanto's law, and voted for Jordan's principle, and then nothing happened.

When I was thinking about the bill on police dogs, I thought of Sergeant John O'Donovan of the Winnipeg Police who, on August 17, 2014, found the body of Tina Fontaine in the Red River. He told the media, “She's a child. This is a child that's been murdered. Society would be horrified if we found a litter of kittens or pups in the river in this condition. This is a child.”.

It says something. This is nothing against dogs and cats; I have dogs and cats at home. However, when a police officer has to point out that a first nation child who was murdered and dumped in a river would have received more attention if she had been a litter of puppies, it says something.

I want to just compare the values that we are seeing in this House, in terms of mandatory minimum sentences.

I would like to read from draft No. 11, dated November 21, 2012. It is entitled “Jordan's Principle, Case Conferencing to Case Resolution, Federal/Provincial Intake Form”. It is tab 420 in the factum of evidence in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on first nation child services that are being denied by the federal government.

The quote is the following:

Previously healthy 4 year old First Nation Child suffered cardiac arrest and anoxic brain injury while undergoing routine dental extraction. The child is totally dependent for all activities of daily living and requires significant medical and equipment before she can be discharged from [health services].

The items that it said she needs are a Hill-Rom bed for a child, a specialized stroller, a mattress to prevent skin breakdown, a trapeze bar, a portable lift, a bath frame, a Hoyer lift. That is what is needed to look after this child and give her mother the support.

There were over a dozen child welfare agencies looking at what needed to be done to get this child back with her family.

When it came to the bed, the bed that would keep her from suffocating, the specialized bed she needed, the non-insured health benefits of Health Canada said absolutely not; they were not paying for a bed for a child who might suffocate otherwise.

We see in the notes that it was the director of the hospital who had to pay out of his pocket for this child to get a bed because the government had written into its policy that providing that child with a life-saving bed was not a priority.

Yet, here we are today talking about mandatory minimum sentences if we are mean to a police dog.

I would like to read from another report, entitled “Jordan's Principle, Dispute Resolution”, dated May 22, 2009. It is tab 320 in the factum of evidence that has been brought forward against the federal government:

A child with multiple disabilities and/or complex medical needs requires a wheelchair and stroller and requires that a lift and tracking device be installed in his/her family home. [Health Canada] will provide children with only one item every five years. If the item is a wheelchair, [non-insured health benefits] supports the provision of manual wheelchairs only, which must be fitted with special seating inserts in order to accommodate small children.

They would not even pay for an electric wheelchair for a completely incapacitated child. It is in the policy.

Yet, here we are talking about mandatory minimum sentences for people being mean to police dogs.

I will read from an internal government report from British Columbia, INAC and Health Canada, Gaps in Delivery Services to First Nation Children in B.C., dated November 6, 2009, which states:

More and more, dentists and other care providers refuse to deal with Health Canada directly because of very long delays in receiving payment....

There is no funding for basic dental care, even in emergency situations; no money for “basic equipment, e.g. hospital bed”. We have already talked about the fact that it will not pay for hospital beds for children: “too bad, so sad”.

There is no funding for special diets for children who cannot eat solid foods, and no funding so that the guardian can travel with a child to a special needs appointment.

I am not making this up. These are in the tabs. Costs for medications are not approved by the federal government, even though the pediatricians prescribe the medication for the child's condition.

It states:

Children in care are not accessing Mental Health services.... If these children cannot get necessary mental health service, [including assessment for fetal alcohol syndrome], they are unable to access [other education programs].

I will point out that in my region of Treaty 9, the issue of not being able to access mental health services has left us with horrific levels of suicide. If children or young people come forward to say that they are depressed or suicidal, the only option is to put them into foster care and take them away from their community. Any other community would provide counselling, but that is not allowed because it is not in the policy. Yet, we have mandatory minimum sentences being discussed today for being mean to police dogs.

I would like to talk about this idea of mandatory minimum sentences.

In the New Brunswick region, we have an internal document entitled “Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships”, dated November 2012, tab 298.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The member for Oxford is rising on a point of order.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has to be some relevance to the bill before the House. This member has been going on about issues that have nothing to do with Bill C-35, Quanto's law. It is certainly high time that he got back to the bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The member for Oxford raises the issue of relevance. I have listened carefully to the member for Timmins-James Bay. I have heard him make reference to the bill that is before the House, but he is talking about other matters that may be related to it. It is the opinion of the Chair that the member has not strayed beyond the normal practice of relevance to this point. However, the Chair is waiting to hear the member bring this back to the matter that is specifically before the House.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues get upset any time that we talk about first nation children or first nation victims in the House. However, I was pointing out, as the member stood up, that I was referring to Bill C-35 and the six-month minimum sentence for abuse of police dogs, and I was comparing this to other government policy. In Bill C-35, we are being asked to talk about invoking minimum sentences for the mistreatment of police dogs, and yet, over on that side, the mistreatment of first nation children under their watch is “too bad, so sad”.

A New Brunswick region internal document entitled, “Education and Social Development Programs and Partnership”, dated November 12, 2012, warns in two sections of the report of the risks, including death to children, through underfunded child welfare programs. It states:

...the continuance of inadequate service delivery in the Agency could lead to exposure of First Nations children to serious harm. [...]

[Further], there would be a significant backlash if a child died as a result of federal funding not being available....

I have seen the House in this last session of Parliament turn into a Potemkin democracy. Important issues of the day are not allowed to be discussed, or they are pushed through in omnibus legislation. However, we have all the time under the sun to talk about the mistreatment of police dogs. I would never support the mistreatment of a dog or cat—I have had dogs and cats my whole life—but I see internal documents that say the government knows that children are at risk of death because of its deliberate underfunding, and the government puts in writing that it would absolutely not give children basic health care and beds that children need so they do not die.

Let us talk about minimum sentences. How about some minimum sentences for the people who have the fiduciary responsibility to look after children under their watch and who leave them with no support? The number of children who have been lost, given up, suffered death, committed suicide, is appalling.

I will go back to the opening statement that I made, from Sergeant O'Donovan of the Winnipeg Police when he found the body of Tina Fontaine. She was an innocent child who had been taken out of her family and put in child welfare and then lost in the system. He said if it were a litter of puppies or kittens, society would be appalled.

We have seen a response from the federal government. Its response was to go after Cindy Blackstock, who brought forward the Human Rights Tribunal case. Its response was to spy on her, to follow her, to break the law in trying to get evidence on her, and to fight these issues all the way through the Human Rights Tribunal.

I will end my speech on this one last case of Pictou Landing, Maurina Beadle, whose son suffered from cerebral palsy, hydrocephalus, and autism. The family fought all the way to the Federal Court of Appeal to get home care for this child, and the government wanted the family to pay legal costs. That is the kind of situation we are dealing with in the House today.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I found his point of view refreshing.

I think we need to compare Bill C-35, Quanto's law, to other bills and the penalties being imposed in other bills. Is today's bill fair compared to others?

Some bills have gone too far. For some time now, it has been common to see court challenges of the penalties the House of Commons imposes in bills. The government must then rewrite the bills because they often go too far. The courts have been clear about this.

In many cases, the government should perhaps take time to consider and debate bills in committee and hear from experts. This government often does not listen. That is why I think the points my colleague raised were worthwhile and very interesting.

I would like him to comment on the time we are spending on this bill compared to the time we have spent on other bills. Budget implementation bills have been sped through, yet we are taking a lot of time to study bills that have a very narrow scope. Could he speak to that?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question. We are in Parliament to review legislation and to assure the people of Canada that any bills that are brought forward and become law have been fully reviewed, so that we understand if there are problems. Whatever bills do, they can create unintended consequences.

Yet under the current government, we see that serious pieces of legislation are blown through. There is time allocation and debate is cut down so that review is not given. We have had more and more bills rejected by the Supreme Court, bills that are unconstitutional, and even had bills turned back in the Senate, because they are obviously failures. We could spend all day, weeks and months, on a bill about being mean to police dogs.

I would like to point out to my colleague the example of the stripping of the navigable waters act. Right across Canada there was no review of that. That was so the Conservatives could get the pipelines through. Now we see in Ontario and Quebec, the push-back on Energy East. If the government had done this in a proper manner and reassured the public, there might not be this kind of resistance we are seeing in Burnaby to the northern gateway pipeline and that we are seeing to Energy East.

The lack of due diligence on these bills has huge implications for development in this country.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really with a great deal of disbelief that I listened to the members opposite complaining about how there is inadequate time to debate bills, and yet when given the opportunity to debate this bill, Quanto's law, the member opposite does not even speak about it. I listened very carefully to his comments and I waited for him to talk about the sections of the bill that he liked or did not like. Instead, all I heard him talk about were other issues.

Quite frankly, I think this contributes to a lot of the disillusionment across the land, when people tune in and see these kinds of antics. When they see a member such as the member opposite trying to distract people and discussion from the matter at hand and see him wasting time talking about unrelated issues rather than addressing the bill before us, people get cynical about what goes on in this place.

I would be interested to see if the member could stand on his feet and just for 30 seconds talk about two or three provisions of Quanto's law.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, is it “antics” to talk about Tina Fontaine's body being found in the Red River? However, I guess because she was an indigenous child, to speak about the mistreatment of aboriginal children in the House the Conservatives think is “antics”. They have absolutely zero interest.

The Conservatives would rather we talk about the treatment of police dogs because they have zero interest in the fact that, under their watch, children are being denied wheelchairs. They are being denied wheelchairs because there are two sets of laws in this country: one for the rich old white people and another for the aboriginal children who are being denied hospital beds, denied access to dental treatment, denied access to medical services. The Conservatives say that when we raise issues of indigenous rights, it is an antic. Damn right.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Before we resume debate, the Chair would like to clarify for all members the issue of relevance. There is a responsibility for members to address the matter that is before the House at any time. As has been said many times from this chair, a significant amount of latitude is given to members in how they do that, including referencing other pieces of legislation or previous pieces of legislation.

Having said that, this is not licence for members to say “We have this matter before the House today, but I think we should be talking about another matter”, and then talking exclusively about that. I just would urge all hon. members to keep the spirit of the principle of relevance central to their speechmaking, and for members to be tolerant of their colleagues who may choose a detour or a circuitous route to get to the point. Having said that, that only makes sense if and when the member actually does come to the point. That is how that is done.

This morning, this issue has been raised a couple of times, but I just want to remind all hon. members that the speech device of saying that that “We are talking about A, but I think we should be talking about B” and then talking about B ad nauseam, regardless of how the member may personally feel about issue B, is not really in the spirit of relevance. With that, I anticipate that we will be able to carry forward with the debate today.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, on a point of order.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I took a lot of exception to the member's use of the term “rich old white people”. It was the disdain in his voice when he uttered that comment. He may not like rich people and he may not like old people, but the House of Commons is no place for him to voice his disdain for that group. Parliament represents rich people and old people. If they happen to be one and the same, maybe they worked for it. That member should be ashamed of himself for using that term in such a derogatory fashion and should apologize.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some people might consider me a rich old white guy. If I said anything derogatory, I retract it. The fact is that there are two laws and indigenous children do not seem to matter to the government. I will retract any unnecessary comments.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you. The Chair appreciates that from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

In terms of the initial point of order raised, the Standing Orders also ask hon. members to conduct themselves in such a way in this place that they do not cause disruption. There are times when members are quite passionate about what they say and they say it in such a way that it incites passion

Again, I would urge members to be cautious in their choice of words and the way they make their points, including when they are speaking about matters they are very passionate about.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to sincerely thank you for the reminder you just gave us.

I would like to begin by saying that, despite the comparisons that were just being made between the government's treatment of aboriginal children and the bill before us, it is important to note that the NDP condemns all forms of animal cruelty. We have long defended that position, and the legislation and bills we have introduced clearly demonstrate that.

It has been said before, but I will say it again: every time this government introduces a bill, the devil is often in the details. I will come back to that in my speech.

We are supporting Bill C-35. I want to reiterate that as well. We feel it is important, as the official opposition, that this be bill passed at second reading so that it can be sent to committee for study. We need to get expert opinions on some of the provisions and proposals in this bill. Once again, with the Conservatives, the devil is in the details. That said, the bill itself is commendable, and that needs to be said.

I am a Cree from Bay James, in northern Quebec. In fact, I come from the last generation of northern Quebec Cree who were born in the forest, in a tent, and who used sled dogs to survive. I remember that when I was young, growing up, we made long treks with our sled dogs.

I remember that after four hours with dogs that had pulled several sleds—there was more than one, since we were a large family— we would stop to take a break and have a little something to eat, and I was tasked with letting the dogs loose. It was the first thing that needed to be done because it was a sign of respect to take the dogs out of their harnesses and feed them first, before we had even had tea and food. That is my culture. I simply wanted to share it with the House.

Speaking of sled dogs, it is also important to remember that according to the Inuit, in the 1950s and 1960s, the RCMP was ordered to slaughter all of the sled dogs in the Arctic and the far north, including in part of my riding, Nunavik. They slaughtered the Inuit's sled dogs so they could force the people into communities to live by their rules.

In 2011, the Government of Quebec wisely recognized the impact of those government actions. It apologized to the Inuit of Nunavik. I know that in 2006, there was a report by Parliament and the RCMP on that. However, they absolved themselves of all responsibility in their own review.

Earlier, I talked about how it is important for this bill to go to committee so that the experts can have a look at it.

I said that because the government is once again trying to impose six-month-long consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for crimes under Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals). We think this bill has to go to committee for study so that experts can tell us, for example, how the mandatory minimum sentences contradict various rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada.

I would like to share two examples. The first is from Gladue. I am sure everyone remembers that important 1999 Supreme Court decision. It mentioned part XXIII of the Criminal Code, which lays out the purpose and basic principles of sentencing as well as the factors judges must take into account in determining an appropriate sentence for an offender. This was an important case with respect to sentencing. We have to consider rulings like these because they require judges to take certain factors into account in sentencing, particularly for aboriginal people.

I would like to read an excerpt from the1999 ruling in the Gladue case. The Supreme Court said that subparagraph 718.2(e):

...requires sentencing judges to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment and to pay particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. The provision is not simply a codification of existing jurisprudence. It is remedial in nature. Its purpose is to ameliorate the serious problem of overrepresentation of aboriginal people in prisons, and to encourage sentencing judges to have recourse to a restorative approach to sentencing.

I am not an expert in sentencing or in the Criminal Code, but I do know a little about the laws of this country, especially Supreme Court decisions, which I take the time to read. Mandatory minimum sentences go against some of the orders handed down from the highest court in the land. It is important to take that into consideration when discussing mandatory minimum sentences.

I will now give the second example, which I have already quoted in the House in another debate on missing and murdered aboriginal women. Today I will again quote from the decision in this important case dealing with sentencing. This also speaks to the importance of inviting experts to tell us how this bill flies in the face of some Supreme Court rulings. Here is what the Supreme Court said in that case, and I will conclude on this point:

When sentencing an Aboriginal offender, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate...for Aboriginal peoples.

The Supreme Court is telling us to go in one direction, but some of the government's bills seem to go in the opposite direction. That is why I believe this bill should be sent to committee for further study.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and especially for reminding us of the importance of the different services, as noted in the bill, that animals such as dogs can provide. He also gave a very interesting example about first nations customs and the respect that the first nations have for working dogs, if I can put it that way.

However, I would like to have his views on the amount of time we are spending on discussing this bill, when there are so many other issues to consider. He raised a few of those issues, including the treatment of first nations, the treatment of first nations children, or other topics related to our economy.

I would like the hon. member to say a few words about that.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her very important question. In the House, the nature of our work is to address all the issues before us.

Mr. Speaker, as you have seen, I heeded your reminder to deal directly with the issue that was before us today, but I thank the hon. member. She is right.

Yesterday, I was in Montreal standing before roughly 300 people to celebrate the graduation of Cree firefighters who had just obtained their internationally recognized certification. Most of them reminded me of what the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard just said. Indeed, there are a lot of issues before us. For Canada's aboriginal peoples alone, there are a great many challenges that remain to be addressed in Canada's aboriginal communities in 2014. I think it is unfortunate that we are not spending more time on aboriginal peoples, the first peoples of this country.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who was quite humble about his legal knowledge. I very much appreciate his experience, and not just in terms of legal issues and negotiations. I am not here to list his resumé, but he is certainly an impressive colleague to have.

He spoke about why Supreme Court rulings are important and how they affect the way we must interpret laws and enforce them.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on one point. Regarding bills like this one, or private members' bills, how has the government applied Supreme Court rulings, in particular with respect to minimum penalties?

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. The bills we have been passing here, under this Conservative government, are increasingly being struck down by the courts and by the Supreme Court. I do not need to remind members of what has happened in some very recent cases. Once again, we need to remember that as parliamentarians, we have a duty to consider the constitutionality of the bills before us.

Pursuant to section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice has a duty to verify whether the bills introduced in the House are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for example. This also applies to issues associated with aboriginal rights.

I also want to remind members that when we impose minimum penalties in bills, as is the case here, we seem to forget that this often has consequences on both the judicial system and the prison system. We cannot forget that. As it seemed to be the case at one point, the government only seems to want to build prisons in this country, when we should be building houses in first nations communities.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by commending you, because that does not happen very often in this place. Your reminder about relevance in reference to the speech that was just given by the member for Timmins—James Bay is very important.

Oftentimes in this place, Mr. Speaker, each one of us has aspects of our representation about which we are very passionate. In the case of the member for Timmins—James Bay and the first nations people who are in his riding, he is very concerned. The striking comment from the police officer when they found that young aboriginal woman's body and when he compared that to the fact that Canadians would be more concerned about puppies, that was of course a flashpoint for my friend from Timmins—James Bay.

I know you were attentive, Mr. Speaker, because you allowed that debate to go perhaps a little long, straying away and then bringing it back with his comments. I appreciate the fact that you had the understanding of the passion, and I just want to commend you for that. That is not something that is usually done in this place.

I think the other reason for the frustration level for members on this side of the House is not that we are not supportive of bills and legislation to protect animals and service animals like the police or RCMP dogs, horses, or other animals. In fact the NDP has supported bills in this House before. I recall Bill C-232 and Bill C-592.

It is the fact that here we are, having a fulsome debate on this, which is more than reasonable, following times when we have had far more complicated legislation before the House and have had time allocation forced on us, more than 80 times now by my reckoning. Once in a while that level of frustration will percolate to the top in the comments we are making.

I can understand my friend, the member for Timmins—James Bay, expressing those concerns earlier.

I also want to commend the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, the critic for the NDP, who reviewed Bill C-35, Quanto's law, for us and offered her recommendations and thoughts.

I might be able to bring a kind of unique perspective to this debate. In 1996, I was putting together, at that time, the largest civil demonstration in the history of our country in Hamilton. It was a protest against the Conservative government of Mike Harris at the time. We wound up with 105,000 people on the streets of Hamilton.

The point I wanted to make is that I had 28 years in the labour movement and, from time to time, either on picket lines or in various demonstrations, I have observed people who are taking part who quite often were provocateurs outside of the activists who had put together the particular event. I have seen on occasion where they had plans, for instance, to injure the horses of police officers with screwdrivers and implements like that.

I understand that when we are dealing with the use of service dogs and horses in crowd control in those circumstances, sometimes there are people who are very extreme.

In our case in Hamilton in 1996, we met with police services and the fire service, and I had individuals in charge of our security. We had 500 of our own marshals. At that particular event, we had about 40 troublemakers—I will not call them activists—who came with the intent of disrupting the event. We were able to discuss the matter with them and with our own marshals and limit their activities to the point where they peacefully demonstrated.

In the end, we can see the importance of having some kind of reaction to the abuse or killing of police service animals. We are in support of this bill going to committee. We do have some problems with the assignment of actual penalties, where the judge does not get to make the decisions. We believe we put our judges in courts to guide us and lead us in the law and to make those appropriate decisions.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired. Consequently, the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek will have five minutes remaining for his remarks when this matter returns before the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek had five minutes remaining in his speech.

The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was reflecting on the fact that I have been in the House nine years and that this is the first time that my speech has been split like this. In considering where I would pick up from in my speaking notes, it came to mind that I should repeat part of my remarks for the people who perhaps did not hear the first five minutes.

I was speaking just before the break about the fact that in 1996 I chaired the largest civil demonstration to that point in Canada, in Hamilton, where there were 105,000 protesters. It is not important for me to go into why the protest took place, but my point was that this protest was well organized. There were 500 marshalls, and 1,267 busloads of protesters who came to town, along with 30,000 to 40,000 Hamiltonians who took part. The really significant part was that there were no arrests or injuries. In fact, the buses even left on time.

There are sometimes situations where crowds may get out of control, such as at the G20 summit in Toronto, where there were a lot of confrontations between police and the public, and a lot of controversy around what happened there. For those of us who have been involved with protests or picket lines—in my case, for some 28 years in the Canadian labour movement—there have been occasions when police services have brought K-9 units to the demonstrations. In the Toronto area, in particular, there are horses. If the public thinks about the equipment that is placed on the horses, it includes eye guards. One of the very distasteful things that has happened in the past is that some people have taken it upon themselves to spike the horses with screwdrivers.

I raise that because there is some justification, in the NDP's opinion, for this particular bill before us, although many aspects of the bill are already contained in law. In particular, we have a situation where this bill is proposing mandatory minimums.

Members will know that the NDP has very grave concerns about the government mandating how our judiciary should respond to any given case. We in the NDP believe that judges have been put in place, who, over the years, are aware of the evolution of the law they have studied and worked with and the jurisprudence that is set from case to case. This has to be taken into account whenever judges are deciding what kind of sentence should be imposed on someone who has been found guilty of an offence. To our way of thinking, that kind of skill level and well-informed opinion is essential to the process.

Yet time and again we hear in this place government members or ministers who believe they are the experts. In other words, the government says there have to be mandatory minimum sentences because it sees the considerations and reasoning that judges make in our courts of law regarding aspects of particular cases, In one instance, a judge may be more forceful in sentencing while in another he or she may taken into account a lot of things that have occurred in a case, believing that an individual might adjust his or her activity with a lesser sentence, who may respond well to the court showing leniency, returning then to the community and becoming a better citizen because of that.

The NDP supports this bill going to committee. It is important because we are prepared to sit down to see if we can make this bill better. We will certainly bring forward our concerns about the mandatory minimum sentencing.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and I think that his concerns are worth noting.

This bill is certainly worthy of being debated in committee after the vote at second reading. I agree with my colleague that we must hear from experts on minimum sentences, since the courts have spoken out against them on a number of occasions. What happens is that judges are hesitant to impose minimum sentences and laws are even overturned, which is very costly.

I even asked the Minister of Justice yesterday how much it cost the federal government to defend its flawed bills with minimum sentences. Unfortunately he did not seem able to answer the question.

Does my colleague think that the Department of Justice is spending too much to defend bills that judges will often challenge? Is it worth going to the Supreme Court to defend minimum sentences—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

Order, please, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture is rising on a point of order.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the debate, but I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to revert to presentation of reports from committees, as I do have a report from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There is no consent.

The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to refresh my memory on my friend's question.

The reality is that there are often times—excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but oftentimes in the application—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I am sorry. I am totally distracted by this, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Would members like to carry on this conversation at the back of the chamber?

The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the week I think we are subject to distraction much more easily.

My friend was talking about how the resources are applied or not applied. The implicit part of his question was whether or not the government had gone over the top.

I will use an example of mandatory minimums in the state of Texas. Texas is seen around the world as one of the more aggressive states in the American union relative to crime and punishment. Prisons are actually being closed in the state of Texas because of the failure of this program.

I think it is important that, when the bill goes to committee, it gets the examination it really, truly deserves.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He raised some important points.

I know he thinks it is important to discuss Canadians' priorities in the House of Commons.

Does he think that the bill we are debating at length here, without too many speeches from the government side, is a high priority for Canadians?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, because that takes us back again to earlier in the debate when our friend from Timmins—James Bay was talking about the imbalance, as he saw it, in the priorities of this government, where we have bill after bill with significant, complicated issues getting time allocation. It in fact is in excess of 80.

I do not want to minimize the fact that it is important to take care of the service animals that the police use, and the search and rescue animals, and we support this bill in essence. However, we find it interesting that bills that have very significant issues with which Canadians are very concerned are pushed aside with time allocation, and the bill before us is getting a lot more time, and it should be just sent to committee.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of C-35, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to law enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals, Quanto's law.

In contradiction to the comments just made by the opposition members, I think these are actually very important pieces of legislation to discuss and move forward. This one actually has a huge impact on all Canadians.

This bill is named after Quanto, a dedicated and decorated Edmonton Police Service animal that was killed last year while assisting in the apprehension of a fleeing subject. Quanto's death was widely reported across the country. It reignited efforts by police to have the Criminal Code amended to specifically criminalize acts on law enforcement animals and, more importantly, to recognize the valuable services they provide to Canadians, slightly in contrast to what the opposition member commented on earlier.

A commitment was made in the Speech from the Throne. I am pleased to be able to speak about this very important bill today. I am also pleased to see that the bill has proposed and would provide specific protections, not just to law enforcement animals but to other kinds of service animals, mainly military animals and service animals that assist individuals with disabilities.

Having seen the assistance that these animals provide, particularly for those individuals who have disabilities, I think this is extremely important and something that Canadians overwhelmingly support.

The proposed amendments would amend the Criminal Code to create a specific offence prohibiting the wilful and unlawful killing or injury of a law enforcement, service, or military animal. The bill defines each of these terms:

...“law enforcement animal” means a dog or horse that is trained to aid a law enforcement officer in carrying out that officer’s duties.

While the focus of this bill has properly been on Quanto, a German shepherd, I think it is important to recall that horses are also still a significant part of Canadian law enforcement agencies. For example, police service animals are used in crowd control situations. They are well suited for this type of patrol activity, as long as they are trained properly. Officers on the horses have a commanding view of the crowd.

More importantly, the added height and visibility the horses give their riders serve in both ways: they allow officers to see what is going on in the wider area, but they also allow people in that area to know where the officers are. This helps deter crime, but it also helps people find the officers when they need them.

I had first-hand experience with this, having been in New York City in an urgent circumstance. I was in downtown New York, travelling with my younger sibling. She is a diabetic, and she experienced a reaction. I had taken her out of the cab we were in, and the first person I saw was a law enforcement officer on horseback, who came immediately to our aid and was able to support us.

I would not have seen such individuals if they were just walking in the crowd. I was able to see the officer immediately and got care immediately for my sibling, and she was actually taken to a hospital within a few minutes.

That is very similar to incidents like one in May 2010, when two street vendors in New York sought help after they saw smoke rising from what turned out to be a crude car bomb. Again, it was an opportunity for citizens to react, to know where help is, to move to those police officers who could respond and clearly help innocent bystanders, moving them out of the way, and to help the circumstances.

In an emergency, the horses are able to move through the crowd easily. During non-emergency situations, horses and officers are typically well received by crowds. Well-trained horses do not spook when they hear loud noises or sudden bangs, and they stand firm and calm, often calming the crowd.

I am certain members will also recall a very high-profile incident that occurred in 2006, when Brigadier, an eight-year-old Toronto Police Service horse, was killed in the line of duty by a motor vehicle whose driver barrelled into the horse and mounted officer. Both of Brigadier's front legs were broken, the left one shattered so badly that he never could have recovered. Brigadier had to be put down after a long term of service.

A military animal, according to the new act:

...means an animal that is trained to aid a member of the Canadian Forces in carrying out that member’s duties.

A service animal is defined as:

....an animal that is required by a person with a disability for assistance and is certified, in writing, as having been trained by a professional service animal institution to assist a person with a disability.

Most Canadians see this work every day. They see these animals in the workplace and community aiding individuals with disabilities so they can get better access to their community and all of their surroundings.

The conduct described by the offence is also prohibited under the more general animal cruelty offences, which apply to all animals. However, their targeted nature reflects the somewhat distinct harm caused when a service animal is attacked, relative to animals that might otherwise just be pets, for instance.

The new offence would carry a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment on indictment, and 18 months and/or a fine of up to $10,000 on summary conviction. This is also consistent with the sentencing range for the more general animal cruelty offences. However, Bill C-35 would require courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence as sentencing objectives in respect of the new offence.

Many have spoken in this chamber about the importance of protecting law enforcement animals and animals that perform valuable services for other government agencies, such as the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Forces. However, I will speak specifically to the aspect of the legislation with respect to protecting service animals, which perform tasks that permit individuals with disabilities to live more independent lives.

Like their counterparts that assist police services, service animals perform a variety of functions. Perhaps the most well known to most Canadians are seeing-eye dogs that assist visually impaired individuals to navigate through their daily lives. These animals, in particular, have opened up wide and far-reaching experiences for Canadians with visible and visual disabilities.

However, there other kinds of service animals. Just as guide dogs are trained to alert their owners to potential hazards they cannot see, hearing dogs are similarly trained with respect to fire alarms and to make sure that those with hearing impairments are well taken care of.

For children who have a dog that hears for them, it allows them to more purposely participate in their everyday school activities and, quite frankly, interact with all of their classmates. It allows them to know when the bell rings so they can go out from school. Therefore, it would be a travesty if at any point in time one of these animals were injured, because it would severely limit these children's opportunity to participate in their daily lives at school.

People with mental disabilities make use of psychiatric service dogs to retrieve medications, activate a medical alert, or to be led out of a crowd when anxious.

A person who has epilepsy or other seizure disorders may have a seizure alert assist dog, a seizure response dog, or animal to alert him or her when a seizure might be upcoming. The animal will steer their owner away from danger during a seizure or something that may activate a medical challenge.

Other types of service dogs can assist persons with physical disabilities, whether helping someone out of a wheelchair, carrying specific objects, pushing buttons, using the elevator, or providing balance for a person with mobility challenges.

I can tell members that these animals play a pivotal role for Canadians with disabilities. It means that they can better integrate into their communities. It means that they can go out and enjoy time with their friends, as opposed to staying only at home. It often means just functioning well at home for the basic necessities so they can lead more independent lives.

As I have said before, making sure that these animals are well protected and protected under the Criminal Code is essential. The limitations for these Canadians if they did not have service would be devastating.

The training of a service animal is an expensive proposition and represents months of work. These animals must be trained to be good natured and obedient in a variety of circumstances, to protect their owners, and to interact well with the public. Some breeds are better than others, but we know that dogs are mostly chosen because they are friendly, loyal, and patient. Typically, a potential service animal undergoes extensive behavioural training before being accepted into a training program

Service dogs work with their disabled partners to enable them to have more independence and freedom. Therefore, I think we should be thanking the individuals who train these animals and the animals themselves for their service and companionship.

I am pleased to support this bill and encourage all here in the House of Commons to support it, because it so overwhelmingly helps individuals with disabilities to lead more independent lives and to integrate better into Canadian society.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the opposite side for her presentation. I too agree with her that this bill has a lot of merit. It merits going to committee for more discussion. There are certain elements in this bill that deserve expert testimony to see if the elements that are being presented are the best ways to bring this matter forward. However, overall, bringing it to committee is definitely a step we should be encouraging all members to support.

I would ask this question for the member. When it comes to the minimum sentences that this bill is introducing, does she not agree that there have been an awful lot of challenges in courts regarding minimum sentences, and that this is costing the judicial system and the taxpayer a lot of money? There is a lot of labour expended from our justice department, defending elements of bills that are finally being defeated in the court, and they only have to be brought back to this House for another look. Should we not be asking experts their position on minimum sentences?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments that this should go to committee for a fulsome discussion. I am delighted to hear that the opposition supports that.

As I mentioned before—and we should be very clear—a service animal and the death of that service animal have a resounding impact on a Canadian. If there are individuals who believe that the willful harm of these animals should not face the full extent of the law, I completely disagree. We should be moving forward to ensure that these service animals, animals that serve police officers but more importantly those who are disabled, are well protected. I am fully supportive of what we are doing here, because it enforces that opportunity for Canadians.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. In particular, I appreciated that she shared her personal story. She clearly understands the importance of these animals.

I would simply like to reiterate a point that has already been mentioned by my colleague regarding minimum sentences and so on. The NDP will be supporting this bill. That said, even the Minister of Justice said that minimum sentences have not had a demonstrable deterrent effect.

Can the hon. member share evidence or scientific studies that can explain why there are minimum sentences in this bill?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, it is extremely important that Canadians understand how important it is that these service animals are available to support Canadians.

Similar to the opposition, I look forward to the discussion that takes place at committee. That fulsome debate is always constructive, and we will definitely move this bill toward its endpoint, which is becoming law and therefore enforceable, so these animals are protected and therefore are of service to Canadians.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to this legislative measure, which is so important that it was part of the throne speech in 2013. I have to say that as I was preparing for this debate, I learned a lot about the work done by service animals. Whether through their work with the police, the army or disabled people, history proves that bonds develop between animals and humans.

This bill is designed to amend the Criminal Code in order to add protections for service animals by toughening sentences in cases of violence against these animals.

I would like to talk to my colleagues about three key aspects of the bill: the important role that service animals play in Canadian society, the government's overuse of minimum sentencing and the message that this bill sends to judges.

In the history of humanity, the domestication of animals was an important step in the emergence of civilization. Clearly, we have made significant progress in how we treat animals. Over time, we have created laws prohibiting all forms of animal cruelty. The NDP has done its share to defend animal rights by introducing bills C-232 and C-592, for example.

As for service animals in particular, humans are able to fill certain gaps by using trained animals. We just have to look at the canine units at law enforcement agencies. Whether we are talking about the RCMP, the provincial police, the Canada Border Services Agency, or the Canadian Armed Forces, animals play an important role in ensuring public safety.

They are used in many situations, whether for helping in search and rescue, detecting explosives or drugs, or pursuing criminals. They are used for tracking missing persons, crowd control, and so forth.

This bill is also referred to as Quanto's law in memory of an Edmonton police service dog who worked with a sergeant. Quanto was stabbed to death trying to stop a fleeing suspect. He had an exceptional service record. He was a decorated dog and was involved in over 100 arrests.

We often think of dogs in canine units, but we must also acknowledge the work of equine units in certain law enforcement agencies. The horses help enhance police officers' visibility in locations that are hard to access.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the exceptional work of service animals who help the disabled to be more functional in our society.

One of my constituents, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from his deployment in Afghanistan by the Canadian army, recognizes how important his service animal is to his healing process. These animals become a little like family members.

We must not underestimate the cost of training and raising these animals. It costs the RCMP $60,000 to train a single German shepherd. The RCMP currently has 157 police dogs in service across Canada. It costs the MIRA Foundation $30,000 to train a service dog. In spite of the costs, we appreciate the work these animals do.

I think that everyone in the House agrees with everything I have said so far. We all appreciate the work that canine and equine teams do. Problems arise when we take a closer look at the clauses in this bill. As they say, the devil is in the details.

I have a number of questions that I hope we can get some answers to. How many service dogs are attacked each year? What is the real impact of minimum sentences on offenders? What deterrent effect will there be?

I would really like the Conservatives to show us some studies that clearly demonstrate the deterrent effect of minimum sentences. That is why this bill needs to go to committee. In his spring 2014 report, the Auditor General expressed concern about overpopulation in prisons. The needs are desperate and growing, but prisons cannot keep up. Stretch an elastic too far, and it is liable to snap and hit you in the face.

The Auditor General even found a direct correlation between mandatory minimum sentences and overpopulation in prisons.

By continuing to increase minimum sentences, we endangering the very people who use service animals in their work. Is that really what the government wants?

Correctional officers are one of the professional groups at high risk of violence in the workplace. What is even more troubling is that the Auditor General's office believes that prison capacities have been stretched so thin that this could adversely affect offender rehabilitation.

Canadians believe in rehabilitation and social reintegration in correctional environments, but overusing minimum sentences, as this government is currently doing, really worries me and the people of my riding.

Canadians also believe that the efficiency of the justice system depends on competent judges who carefully examine each case individually and render decisions in accordance with our laws.

For the past few years, however, the government has been tying the hands of judges. It is taking away their power to make decisions based on each individual case. As we know, the Conservatives have been rebuked several times in Supreme Court decisions, which is a waste of time and money for Canadians.

We therefore have to be careful about the scope of these laws, so as to not limit judicial discretion in Canada. We must not take any more discretionary power away from our courts of justice.

The NDP denounces any form of cruelty to animals. That is a fact. I would like to take a moment to recognize the terrific work being done by all kinds of service animals and their teams.

However, it is important to think seriously about the consequences of minimum and consecutive sentencing. That is why I recommend that the bill be studied further by experts in civil society, people who use service animals, and above all, legal experts.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very interesting speech. I also support the bill we are debating today.

I would like to hear my colleague talk a little more about the Conservatives' approach, because this is certainly not the first bill we have seen with minimum sentences.

Could she talk about the other bills the Conservatives have introduced that contain minimum sentences? Could she also talk about the effect these bills will have on our prisons and about Canada's approach to this?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for giving me the opportunity to speak to this topic, which isn't exactly what we are debating today, but it has consequences and is found in almost all of the bills this government introduces.

The Conservatives always give discretionary powers to the ministers in their bills. We have seen this with immigration bills, among others, as well as a number of bills I have heard people debate in the House.

This is very dangerous for our democracy. It is a hard thing to control. I have seen a judge use his discretionary power to punish an offender by having him wash windows for community groups for a certain number of hours, because the young offender had broken windows.

If the government imposes minimum sentences, judges no longer have that discretionary power and can no longer hand down punishments that will help offenders rejoin society more quickly.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

My question for her is the same that I have asked a number of members who spoke to Bill C-35.

The Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women surprised me. Although this was originally a private member's bill, it has suddenly become a huge priority for this government.

Does the government not have priorities other than extensively debating a bill on which members are unanimous in many respects? Does my colleague find that worrisome?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question. She always asks very insightful questions.

It is nice to stand up for the dogs who are trained to defend us and it is nice to protect them.

However, the government refuses to conduct an inquiry when over a thousand women have been murdered or gone missing in Canada. That is a double standard.

We are all in favour of this bill, which seeks to protect dogs and punish those who attack them. Through anthropomorphism, these dogs become our friends and members of our family because we love them.

However, if we are being rational, there are more important matters we should be dealing with, such as the issue of the missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today' order paper.