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)

[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.