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)

[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?