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)

[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.