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)

[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?