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)

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be here today to take part in the third reading debate of Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, also known as Quanto's law.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code support the Speech from the Throne commitment to bring forward Quanto's law in recognition of the daily risks taken by police officers and their service animals. The proposed amendments would create a specific new offence prohibiting the killing or injuring of a law enforcement animal, a service animal, or a military animal.

I note that the bill defines each of these terms. A law enforcement animal is defined as a dog or a horse trained to aid a law enforcement officer in carrying out that officer's duties. A military animal is defined as an animal that is trained to aid a member of the Canadian Forces in carrying out the member's duties, and a service animal is defined as an animal that is required by a person with a disability for assistance and that is certified, in writing, as having been trained by a professional service animal institution to assist a person with a disability.

Quanto was a five-year-old German shepherd Edmonton police service dog that was fatally stabbed on October 7, 2013, while assisting the police in apprehending a suspect. Quanto and its handler, Constable Matt Williamson, were in pursuit of a suspect in a stolen vehicle. When the vehicle became disabled at a gas station, the man jumped out and fled. Constable Williamson ordered the suspect to stop or he would send in Quanto. When his calls were ignored, Constable Williamson deployed Quanto. Unfortunately, as Quanto caught and held the suspect, the suspect began stabbing the dog with a knife. Quanto was taken for medical treatment, but his injuries, sadly, were fatal.

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

However, the maximum sentence that may be imposed when this hybrid offence is prosecuted as an indictable offence is five years of imprisonment. The law provides that the court may, in addition to any other sentence, on application of the Attorney General or on its own motion, order that the accused pay the reasonable costs incurred in respect of the animal as a result of the commission of the offence.

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

The person who killed Quanto was sentenced to a total of 26 months' imprisonment on various charges arising out of the tragic events of October 7, 2013, of which 18 months were specifically for killing Quanto. The accused was also banned from owning a pet for 25 years.

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

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

The person who drove the car was subsequently convicted, including for dangerous driving causing bodily harm to Brigadier's mounted officer.

Members of this House will be aware of the many ways law enforcement dogs assist their handlers in protecting the public. A police dog is trained specifically to assist police and other law enforcement personnel in their work, such as searching for drugs and explosives, searching for lost people, looking for crime scene evidence, and protecting their handlers. Law enforcement canine units, like Quanto's unit in Edmonton, are a common component of municipal police forces as well as provincial police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

When I visited the police service in my region of York, at the invitation of York Regional Police Chief Eric Jolliffe, I had the opportunity to see the canine unit at work. I was given a complete demonstration and was joined by the Minister of Justice of our country. I heard very compelling evidence and support from the police officers who are working with these animals on a daily basis.

In 1995, after an absence of 23 years, a new version of the Montreal police canine unit was established. Today this canine unit has 11 officers and 10 operational dogs. The unit supports Montreal police officers in their investigations and daily activities. It is also called upon to work on certain operations where its specialties are required. For example, the unit will co-operate with police forces throughout Quebec that do not have canine units or will work with dog handlers on other police forces during major events. It participates in media, community, and cultural events, at schools and community meetings, and on television shows to promote the canine unit and the good work of the Montreal police service.

The dogs in the Montreal police canine unit specialize in specific types of work. Some dogs have general purpose training with a specialization in narcotics detection. Other dogs have a specialization in searching buildings, and some dogs have specialized explosives detection training.

On the international front, a number of American states, such as Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon, have enacted laws making the intentional injury or killing of a police dog a felony offence and subjecting perpetrators to harsher penalties than those in the statutes embodied in local animal cruelty laws, just as an assault on a police officer may result in harsher penalties than a similar assault on a member of the public.

With respect to law enforcement horses, after they undergo special training, they may be employed for specialized duties ranging from the patrol of parks and wilderness areas, where police cars would be impractical or noisy, to riot duty, where the horse, because of its larger size, serves to intimidate those they want to disperse. Police horses provide the officers who ride them with added height and visibility, which gives their riders the ability to observe a wider area. However, it also allows people in the wider area to see the officers, which helps deter crime and helps people find officers in those instances when they need one.

This bill proposes to extend specific protection not only to law enforcement animals but to trained service animals and military animals. Service animals perform tasks that help their disabled human masters live independent lives. Most service animals are dogs, such as Seeing Eye dogs. However, other kinds of animals may be trained to be service animals. The cost associated with training a new service animal is significant.

The Canadian Armed Forces uses a variety of animals on a contracted basis as required. For example, animals assist members of the Canadian Armed Forces by sniffing for bombs. Each of these animals is required to have received specialized training that enables it to accomplish specific tasks in support of its human handler.

It should also be noted that this offence only applies when the animal is killed or injured in the line of duty. Animals that do not fall within the scope of the new offence are nonetheless protected under the existing animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code.

As with the existing section 445 of the Criminal Code, the proposed offence would require the offender to have intended to kill or injure one of these animals. That way, accidental or negligent conduct would not be criminalized. Like section 445 of the Criminal Code, the new offence would carry a maximum penalty of five years of imprisonment or indictment of 18 months and-or a fine of $10,000 on summary conviction. However, it is important to note that the proposed amendments would also require courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence as sentencing objectives in respect of the new offence. Furthermore, we must underline that there would be a mandatory minimum of six months of imprisonment where a law enforcement animal was killed in the line of duty and the offence was prosecuted by indictment.

Bill C-35 also includes a provision that would require the sentence imposed on a person convicted of assault committed against a law enforcement officer to be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender for an offence committed at the same time.

The murder of a police officer is classified as first degree murder and is punishable by life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period for parole eligibility of 25 years. The Criminal Code specifically prohibits assaults committed against police officers in the performance of their duties for a number of offences, including subsection 270.(1), assault on a peace officer; section 270.01, assault with a weapon or assault causing bodily harm on a peace officer; and section 270.02, aggravated assault on a peace officer.

Regrettably, data from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics adult criminal court survey reveals that there are still too many assaults on police officers in our country. From 2009-10 to 2011-12, there were a total of 31,461 charges laid under section 270.(1), 345 charges laid under section 270.0, and 20 charges laid under section 270.02.

In 2009, the Criminal Code was amended to require courts, when sentencing persons convicted of such assaults, to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.

I am sure that we all recognize that such attacks not only put the lives or safety of the individual officers at risk but that they also attack and undermine the justice system more broadly. Recognizing that the wilful killing or injuring of a law enforcement animal also undermines the justice system more broadly, the bill would require that the sentence imposed on a person convicted of the wilful killing or injuring of a law enforcement animal would be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender for an offence committed at the same time.

I could go on and on about this subject. However, I will close my remarks today by indicating that I am looking forward to the quick passage of the bill at third reading, and I sincerely hope that we can get the bill to our colleagues on the other side of the House and passed before we recess for the summer.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our government, of course, continues on its commitment to help out families, not just by lowering the costs they pay for products and services but, most important, by lowering taxes that they are required to pay to the government and providing more money in their pockets to help them make ends meet. We think that is one of the most meaningful things we can do as a government: help Canadians succeed and meet their aspirations and dreams for a brighter future.

This afternoon will be dedicated to today’s NDP’s opposition day motion.

Tomorrow, we will wrap up the third reading debate on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act. This will be the sixth day of debate for that particular piece of legislation, which would support economic development north of 60 while ensuring the preservation of the environment.

Monday shall be the eighth allotted day when we will debate another NDP opposition day motion. Regrettably, I have noticed that the NDP leader has never taken me up on my suggestion that he allow the House an extended debate on one of their proposals, under Standing Order 81(16)(a). As a result, next week, we will have the 88th time-allocated opposition day of this Parliament.

That evening, as required by the Standing Orders, we will debate the main estimates. Then, we will consider an appropriations bill, the supplementary estimates, followed by a second appropriations bill.

Tuesday morning, we will consider Bill S-2, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, at report stage. This legislation will help streamline regulations and ensure that important safety rules keep up with evolving developments and standards.

In the afternoon, we will take up Bill C-59, economic action plan 2015, No. 1, at report stage, in anticipation that it will be reported back to the House tomorrow.

This package of essential measures—such as the family tax cut, enhancements to the universal child care benefit, and a reduction to the small business income tax—is an important priority for our Conservative government and I think, more important, a priority for Canadian families.

Since the budget was delivered this spring, however, the Liberal leader has let us and all Canadians in on his economic plans.

First, we learned he thinks that “benefiting every single family is not...fair”.

Then, he topped it off when he told Canadians that the Liberals are looking at a mandatory expansion of the Canada pension plan. That would mean a $1,000 tax hike for a typical earner and for that earner's employer, and that $1,000 tax increase on two sides would be a significant potential impairment and drag on our economy. Certainly, it would be a huge drag on the personal finances of Canadian families.

On Wednesday, we will return to Bill C-59, if additional time is needed.

Thursday morning, we will consider Bill C-35, which is the justice for animals in service act, Quanto's law, at report stage and, ideally, third reading.

This is an important bill, which would ensure appropriate criminal penalties for killing or harming police animals and other service animals—dogs, horses, and so on—and speedy consideration of it would be favourable because that would allow it to pass and make it to the Senate for its consideration this spring.

I would remind the House the bill has already received four days of second reading debate and was in the justice committee for over five months.

That afternoon, we will again consider Bill S-2, and I hope it will be at third reading.

Next Friday, we will return to Bill S-7, the zero tolerance for barbaric cultural practices act, at report stage. The House will recall that we are debating the opposition's amendments to gut the bill of its entire contents—contents that demonstrate our Conservative government's commitment to end violence against women and girls.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, colleagues. It's a pleasure to be before you to discuss, as noted by the chair, the main estimates for the Department of Justice.

This is my 56th appearance before a standing committee as a government minister. Joining me today are the deputy minister of justice and deputy attorney general, William Pentney; the associate deputy minister, Pierre Legault; and senior assistant deputy minister of policy, Donald Piragoff; all of whom have extensive experience before committees as well and certainly within this department.

Mr. Chair and colleagues, in my role as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I'm responsible for ensuring that our justice system remains fair, relevant, and accessible to Canadians. It also involves, of course, overseeing a significant budget, with an eye to fiscal prudence and respect for taxpayers.

The Government of Canada introduced measures in connection with several criminal justice priorities. Our objective is to to make our streets and communities safer, and ensure that our justice system continues to bolster the safety of Canadians through our criminal justice laws, policies and programs.

Among them, Mr. Chair, we are pleased to announce that the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act has come into force. This law takes effect very soon and deals specifically with law enforcement online. This is a bill with which you and members of this committee are very familiar. I thank you for your work in this regard.

We've seen increased activity with regard to the subject of cyberbullying, which has had a devastating impact on many young people in Canada, affecting their reputations, their self-esteem, and their mental health. Also, it has directly contributed to the unfortunate decision that a number of young people have taken to end their own lives, young people like Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd, Todd Loik, and countless others, which is why the government acted to protect young people from malicious online behaviour, such as posting intimate images on the Internet, and the insidious and relentless harassment that often follows.

This is coupled with outreach efforts that are ongoing, and with education and the involvement of many people and organizations—such as the Canadian Centre for Child Protection in Winnipeg—which have directly contributed to the assistance of young people who are feeling cornered, hopeless, and in some cases desperate. Things such as GetHelpNow.ca and Cybertip.ca are areas in which young people are able to access information about how to remove offending material.

The Government of Canada also understands that Canadians expect their justice system to keep them safe, and we are committed to protecting Canadians from individuals who may pose a high risk to public safety. It's an obligation and a responsibility that we take very seriously.

Obviously, the evolving threat of terrorism is one those most troubling threats. In response to this risk, we introduced a bill earlier this year, which again is a bill you're familiar with, Bill C-51, to strengthen our existing anti-terrorism laws to ensure that they continue to respond appropriately to all forms of terrorism.

As you know, the bill is currently before the Senate. Among other things, such as enabling police to be more proactive in identifying radicalization and acting accordingly, this bill will fill a current gap in the Criminal Code by creating a new Criminal Code offence criminalizing the advocacy and promotion of terrorism, including those that would encourage attacks on Canadians.

Protecting victims of crime is another area in which we have been very active, as has this committee. We are moving to provide a more effective voice in our justice system as a key priority for our government. Victims of crime deserve to be treated with courtesy, compassion, and respect.

Mr. Chair, to that end, we introduced the Victims Bill of Rights. It received royal assent last month. This legislation enables the rights of victims of crime at a federal level and establishes statutory rights to information, protection, participation, and in some cases restitution. It also ensures that there is a complaint process to deal with breaches of those rights.

Again, I could mention others that this committee has been seized with, including Quanto's law, tougher penalties for child predators, and several other bills, for which I again express my appreciation for the diligence of this committee.

Mr. Chair, the Department of Justice is estimating net budgetary expenditures of $673.9 million in the year 2015-16, which is a net spending increase of $43.3 million from the 2014-15 main estimates. The net increase in spending illustrates the Government of Canada's commitment to maintaining, as mentioned, the integrity and the importance of our justice system in terms of accessibility to it through programs and personnel.

Mr. Chair, one especially important area of increased spending, totalling $1.9 million, represents the funding in support of non-legislative measures to address prostitution. In 2014, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act came into force. This uniquely Canadian model was informed by the results of government consultations, public consultations, on the subject of prostitution in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Bedford.

That consultation received more than 31,000 responses from Canadians, in addition to the in-person round tables. This was the largest consultation, I note, ever undertaken by the Department of Justice to date, and it recognized in the legislation the significant harms associated with prostitution. In a combination of Department of Justice money and Public Safety money, $20 million is being made available through a fund over five years for programs aimed specifically at helping those who sell sexual services to exit prostitution.

Mr. Chair, this is a compassionate and common-sense program that we are delivering, and we believe it will make a positive difference. The funding will provide services such as trauma therapy, addiction recovery, employment training, and financial literacy. It could also be used to support transitional housing, emergency safe houses, child care, and drop-in centres. I can tell you that there has been tremendous uptake on this program funding. In addition, there will be funding made available to help law enforcement agencies connect with those who want to leave prostitution and help them find emergency or long-term services, such as those I just mentioned.

The new resources demonstrate the government's commitment to meaningfully support those exploited through prostitution. We are ensuring that the laws address as well the serious harms associated with prostitution and deliver the protection that vulnerable Canadians and communities have come to expect and deserve from this government.

Mr. Chair, in February of 2015, the government announced that it had extended its support for the aboriginal justice strategy to include an additional $11.1 million for fiscal year 2016-17. The aboriginal justice strategy supports community-based justice programs across the country that have delivered results in reducing crime and victimization in aboriginal communities. There are approximately 275 aboriginal justice programs. There is outreach to over 800 aboriginal communities now, touching every province and territory, both on and off reserve, and in rural, urban, and northern communities.

Lowering recidivism and reducing the overrepresentation of aboriginal Canadians in our justice system is at the root. The programs are cost-effective and produce short- and long-term savings for Canadians by freeing up police, court, and correctional resources to address more serious crime. This is in addition to other programs such as the $25 million that is directly focused on the subject of murdered and missing aboriginal women.

Although there was an effort with respect to the main estimates—an increase of $43.3 million—there have also been decisions taken around the providing of legal services as part of our commitment to better and more effectively manage resources. Within the department, there was a review of the legal services provided to all government departments. As you know, we do a great deal of work on behalf of other departments and other agencies in government. As a result, we've identified immediate measures to reduce legal services demand and costs. There is another wave that is aimed specifically at simplifying and increasing access to legal services. It will be implemented within the coming fiscal year.

Over the next year, the department will also continue to work to meet the needs of the Government of Canada's policy objectives. They include enhancing legislation to hold offenders accountable; supporting initiatives to address such issues as security and terrorism, as I referenced earlier; working with other departments to address crime prevention; rehabilitation, treatment, and enforcement activities that relate to illicit drugs; and continuing our aboriginal justice issues. I would also add to that list the work that's done with young offenders. In particular, there are various branches of this youth justice initiative that deal with guns and gangs.

These initiatives will help the Department of Justice continue to build a system that improves access and meets the diverse needs of Canadians.

Mr. Chair, the Government of Canada is determined to protect the integrity of our justice system. We have reaffirmed that commitment through the level of funding allocated to the Justice portfolio.

The items presented by the Department of Justice for inclusion in the 2015-2016 main estimates will help to guarantee that we continue to have a fair society that respects our legislation and has an accessible, effective and equitable justice system.

Finally, the funding that the justice portfolio has received delivers results. I'm proud to say that, aided by very able officials, we'll continue to see that these funds are spent wisely while ensuring that Canadians have the fair, relevant, and accessible justice system that they expect.

I want to again thank you, Mr. Chair and members of this committee, for your diligence and determination in examining in many cases very complex bills and for the contribution you are making in that regard.

I look forward to taking your questions over this period. Similarly, I know that officials here, along with representatives from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, from the Administrative Tribunals Support Service, and other officials will be attending, I believe, at the next meeting, on May 13, to answer any questions in those particular areas.

Thank you, Chair.

Justice and Human Rights

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-35, an act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals).

The committee has studied the bill and has agreed to report it back to the House without amendment.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to the study on the subject matter of Bill C-583, an act to amend the Criminal Code (fetal alcohol spectrum disorder).

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

As Mr. Hyer has pointed out, his amendment would have the effect of removing the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for the killing of a law enforcement animal, and of course the intent of our legislation is to create such a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. It's the government's position that a mandatory minimum penalty under Bill C-35 would not result in the imposition of a grossly disproportionate sentence which would be found to be cruel and unusual punishment under the charter.

We note that the Supreme Court of Canada has set a high bar for what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the charter, and the government believes that where a law enforcement animal is killed while assisting a law enforcement officer, the offence prosecuted is by indictment a mandatory minimum sentence of six months and is a reasonable and proportionate means of denouncing such an offence, and that's one of the intents of courts of law.

It's worth noting that Quanto's killer was sentenced for a total of 26 months, of which 18 months were attributed to the killing of the animal, so we'll be opposed to the amendment, sir.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Subsection 429(2) does not use the same terminology at all. There is a different shade of meaning between “where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right” and “wilfully and without lawful excuse”.

I have just figured out what my colleague Mr. Casey meant in his amendment. My understanding is that he wants to respond to the testimony and make Bill C-35 stricter. In other words, he does not open the door to any kinds of excuses. If that happens, the person is guilty. I think I have understood that aspect, but I would still like to go back to the difference in meaning, because there is one.

A main section says that the entire clause needs to be interpreted in a certain way, but the same terminology has not been used. Does that mean that the words “wilfully and without lawful excuse” also suggest a lesser burden? To me, that wording seems a little softer and more gentle than “where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right”. In the latter, the burden is a little heavier.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace.

This amendment changes the wording in Bill C-35 in clause 2 from “shall” to “may”, as you see, and it adds the words:events, if the court considers it to be necessary for the proper administration of justice.

Why? This bill would introduce a mandatory consecutive sentence, a practice opposed by many experts in the legal field. Mandatory consecutive sentences are simply bad judicial policy, according to the Canadian Bar Association and others.

As the Canadian Bar Association has pointed out, judges are required anyway to abide by the general principle of proportionality in sentencing, an impossible task if they're also required to impose mandatory minimum sentences. The combination of mandatory minimums and mandatory consecutive sentences is particularly worrisome and seriously threatens judicial discretion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm going to call this meeting back to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 28, we're dealing with Bill C-35, an act to amend the Criminal Code in regard to law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals.

We've had the minister present on this, we've had witnesses, and now we're doing the clause-by-clause. We are joined by our officials from the Department of Justice.

Thank you for joining us today.

If there are any questions about any of the four clauses—I believe there are four—as we go through them, let me know, and we'll have the officials respond. There are actually five amendments, but the amendments from the Green Party are identical, and Mr. Hyder is here to speak.

You can sit at the table, Mr. Hyder.

We will be removing Ms. May's amendments and going to Mr. Hyder's because he's here to talk about them. Just so you know the procedure as we go forward, we'll give Mr. Hyder a minute or so to talk about each of his amendments, and then we'll vote.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75.1, consideration of the first clause, the short title, is postponed.

(On clause 2)

We have two amendments to clause 2.

Ms. May is not here, so it's out of order, in a sense.

By the way, all amendments that have been proposed are admissible .

Mr. Hyder, the floor is yours to talk about the amendment you're proposing to clause 2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for those comments, Costas.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentations. They were excellent today and I think really added to the value of our discussion on what's happening with Bill C-35.

Committee members, I'd like to remind you that on the fourth of May, next Monday, we are dealing with the report that we were doing on the blood alcohol study. We have the whole day set aside for it. I'm hoping that we can accomplish this that day; we'll spend the two hours at it.

If not, you need to know that on the sixth, things have changed slightly, and in regard to Bill C-590 on blood alcohol, the mover of the motion will be here and has no witnesses. He will be here for an hour, and we have no witnesses afterwards. I will allocate the second hour, if it's required, to deal with any discussion that comes out of Bill C-590 on Monday, because by Friday I have to report it back to the House. I happen to be here that Friday for the first time in about five years, so I will be able to do that if required.

In addition to that, just so folks know, I think there will be time, ladies and gentlemen, to move the clause-by-clause, all four clauses, on the sixth, which is next Wednesday. I don't think we need more than 15 minutes. I don't think there are a lot of amendments coming. I haven't heard of any. I think we would be able to deal with that—

[Barbara Cartwright]

Thank you very much for your question.

There are, as I mentioned at the outset in my comments, definitely other weaknesses within the Criminal Code with regard to animal cruelty. Mr. Kaye mentioned having worked on trying to improve protection for police animals for a decade, and certainly many of us have been working for a significant amount of time to update the Criminal Code with regard to animals.

Specific for us, areas that we were working on hopefully are going to be dealt with in Bill C-35, which is the aggravating offence of maiming, injuring, killing or wounding a service animal. So it's good to see that's moving forward.

We also see a very large hole in the Criminal Code dealing with animal fighting. Right now there is on the books that it's illegal to be at a cockfight, for example, but it doesn't recognize the other types of fighting that have evolved over the last hundred years. It also doesn't recognize that you could be training an animal to fight and be committing acts of animal cruelty, and that it should be illegal to actually profit from animal fighting. The way the current Criminal Code is written is that you must be caught in the act of being at the fight.

As we will have seen in the past with say, as some of you may know, the very high-profile case of Michael Vick, he wasn't at the actual fight. He was charged with a felony, because he was the one who owned the training facility, and to train an animal to fight is an extraordinarily cruel process. That's one area that we see should be very easy for everyone to get behind, that animal fighting and animal cruelty that happens in animal fighting should be addressed in the Criminal Code more appropriately.

We would also like to see the term of “willful” be removed from “neglect.” I don't necessarily think it's the same case here the way willful is used, but “willful neglect”, to prove that someone intentionally did something and what was going on in their mind at the moment that they were neglecting an animal, has made it very difficult to move forward with the Criminal Code, so we see prosecutors across the country actually turning to provincial legislation in order to address this issue.

Why that's important, of course, as you will all appreciate, is that we need it to be charged under the federal law so that your criminal record follows you. As you might have recently noticed in the case with the Milk River dogs, a woman who was habitually neglecting animals to near death and moving from province to province was only being charged provincially, because of the concern that the federal law, the Criminal Code, would not be able to address the issue adequately.

We would also like to see that all animals are protected. Right now, as you probably know, cattle enjoy their own section of the Criminal Code, because when it was written a hundred years ago, cattle were the main animals that were of critical importance. We would like to see all animals have the protection of the Criminal Code in wording.

Finally, there's no specific offence for particularly brutal, violent, or vicious crimes against animals, and to our earlier conversation about the violence link, we think it's very important that we have an offence that addresses this issue that whether or not the animal dies immediately, if you kill an animal brutally or viciously, the chances are you will escalate to humans as well.

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

Thank you very much.

Ms. Cartwright, I would like to ask you some questions. We have a little time so we are going to take advantage of that as long as you are here.

Could you tell us some more about the measures? I understand that Bill C-35 is one bill among many that we need to prevent cruelty to animals. Bill C-35 certainly will allow charges to be brought against those who act cruelly to animals.

What measures would you like to see the government put forward to prevent cruelty to animals? What kinds of problems are your organizations dealing with? What kinds of measures could we put in place to help you?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you all for being here. Thank you, Staff Sergeant, for reminding us about Quanto and making him more than just the title of a bill, making him feel almost human to the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Kaye, for telling us about all the other dogs. It doesn't matter how many. One is already too many.

Madam Bergeron, I'm in awe of what you're doing. It's amazing what you can do and it just makes us humble in that area. I'm of those people who said your dog is beautiful, so I am guilty as charged. She is very quiet. Way to go, Lucy.

Ms. Cartwright, thank you for everything the SPCA does around this country for animals. I always say, and will always repeat very proudly, how much I find that we need to protect those who are most vulnerable. We love animals but they can't defend themselves. If we don't take measures to defend them, I don't know who will.

I don't want to discuss law too much with you because we had other panels for that. I just have two basic questions. The first one is for Staff Sergeant Carriere and Mr. Kaye.

Do you think the sentence in the Quanto case would have been different with Bill C-35 or would it have been similar? I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing. Is it more the fact that Bill C-35 is finally pinpointing and creating a category...? I heard the minister say, unless I didn't understand him correctly, that the sentence was all right in the Quanto case, which seems to say that the Criminal Code, as it is right now, could be seen as sufficient to address the type of situation that was present in the Quanto case.

I would like to hear you both on that factor.

For Ms. Bergeron and Ms. Cartwright, my question concerns the fact that we kind of put them in an order. The police dogs seem to have a higher standing with Quanto's law than assistance dogs or military animals. Are you okay with that? That's all I want to know from your side.

Maybe we could start with Mr. Carriere and Mr. Kaye.

[Barbara Cartwright, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies]

Thank you.

I have this lovely speech prepared but I must admit I find that the testimonies of the three esteemed people whom I have the pleasure and honour of sitting with are very impactful, so I might cut some of my stuff out to save going through what I could never possibly describe as well as they have.

Let me start by saying thank you for inviting me to appear as a witness before the justice and human rights committee. I do want to start by thanking the committee for their attention on this important matter and for their hard work on behalf of all Canadians.

My name is Barbara Cartwright and I am the chief executive officer of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. I'm appearing before you today to bring the support of humane societies and SPCAs from across the country for Bill C-35, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to law enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals.

The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, also known as the CFHS, is a national organization that represents humane societies and SPCAs. These are the very humane societies and SPCAs that your constituents depend on to care for the abused and abandoned animals in your communities, but also for law enforcement, to provide humane education, and to celebrate the human-animal bond.

The federation represents 51 diverse members from all 10 provinces and two of the territories, with their millions of individual supporters. The CFHS represents the largest SPCA in the country, actually on the continent, which is the British Columbia SPCA, which has 37 branches across the province. We also represent some of the very smallest SPCAs and humane societies in the country, including Happy Valley-Goose Bay SPCA, located in a central part of Labrador; the Northwest Territories SPCA in Yellowknife; and the Charlotte County SPCA in St. Stephen, New Brunswick. I tell you that to give you an idea of the scope of support for this bill all across the country.

Since we were formed in 1957 the CFHS has worked toward positive, progressive change to end animal cruelty, to improve animal protection, and to promote the humane treatment of all animals. We were founded by four key individuals in 1957, and I want to tell you a little bit about them because each of them, I think, would be very proud of this moment and this legacy that's carrying forward in animal protection with Bill C-35.

The first was Lieutenant-Colonel Taylor, the past-president of the Ottawa Humane Society, who was instrumental in encouraging people to join together nationally to have a voice for animals at the national level. Gord Gunn was the honorary secretary of the Ottawa Humane Society, but more importantly was a soldier in World War I and witnessed the suffering of war horses. He developed a keen interest in preventing animal cruelty and protecting those that work with us. Dr. Cameron was the chief veterinary inspector for Canada for fifteen years and also the veterinary director general of Canada. His outcry against the inhumane slaughter of farm animals in Canada sparked the interest in creating the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies.

But most importantly, we were also founded by a senator, Senator McGrand from New Brunswick. Throughout his life the senator recognized and advocated for respect for all life. He believed passionately in the importance of humane education, the humane movement, and the lifelong commitment to protecting animals. He understood the vulnerability of animals and children. He was adamant that human violence and animal abuse could not be separated. He raised awareness about the cruelty link: the connection between those who commit acts of violence against animals and then escalate that towards violence against humans. He was the primary driving force behind the Senate of Canada's study on this violence. lts report, entitled “Child at Risk”, was completed in 1980 and examined early childhood experiences as causes for criminal behaviour.

The legacy of Senator McGrand continues today as we discuss Bill C-35, which makes it an offence to:

wilfully and without lawful excuse, kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures a law enforcement animal while it is aiding a law enforcement officer in carrying out that officer’s duties, a military animal while it is aiding a member of the Canadian Forces in carrying out that member’s duties or a service animal.

At the CFHS we understand and appreciate the bond between human and animals, the bond that we've heard spoken about today, and we promote the respect and humane treatment of all animals. We believe that all animals used by humans should be provided with the highest levels of protection to ensure their health, welfare, and safety.

Everyone who has a companion animal understands the invaluable way in which these animals enrich our lives. The animals covered in Bill C-35 are the ones that immeasurably improve the quality of our lives as a community in ways that we may never have a direct ability to touch and be involved with, but they impact our society significantly.

Enforcement and military animals have been given the job of protecting us. They provide us a multitude of services, and I won't go into them because I think they've been outlined clearly by the prior speakers. But these are jobs that they do willingly, and sometimes, as we've heard, they pay the ultimate sacrifice. These animals play a special role in protecting our communities and therefore deserve our greater protection.

Service animals, as we heard from Diane, are specifically trained to address and assist people and to enrich their lives by providing them medical assistance and allowing them greater independence and greater dreams, which is fantastic. The animals that guide the blind, signal to the hearing impaired, or provide other services to people also need greater protection. These animals measurably improve the quality of life of Canadians. The proposed legislation is aimed at denouncing and deterring the willful harming of these specially trained animals. Bill C-35 honours and recognizes these animals and the important contribution they are making to our society.

As we know, Bill C-35 is named after Quanto, and I'm not going to discuss Quanto at this point in time because Troy already ran through that for us, but I would like to just mention Brigadier, a different animal, a police horse that was compassionately euthanized after he and his rider, Constable Kevin Bradfield, were struck in a hit and run incident. The driver of the vehicle was charged with dangerous operation of a vehicle causing bodily harm and failing to remain at the scene of an accident. It is believed that he deliberately struck the horse and the rider. Brigadier sustained fatal neck and rib injuries in the accident.

Many of our member societies have enforcement authorities and appreciate the relationship between officer and animal. As well, they appreciate the value of deterrents and denunciation. In many other jurisdictions, police and military animals are afforded greater protection in recognition of their service to society, but also as a recognition that an attack on them is also an attack on our rule of law and order. For example, in the U.S. the intentional injuring or killing of a police dog is a felony, subjecting the perpetrator to harsher penalties than those in the statutes embodied in the local animal cruelty laws, just as an assault on a human police officer is often a more serious offence than the same assault on a non-officer.

The CFHS and all its members support the justice and human rights committee in dealing with this important update to the Criminal Code. The animal cruelty sections of the Criminal Code don't go far enough to protect these animals and were in fact originally enacted in 1892, with only minor amendments in the 1950s and again in 2008.

As the justice and human rights committee attends to the urgent need to address these crimes against these animals, Canada's humane movement would like to bring to your attention other weaknesses in the Criminal Code and ask that you consider them in the future at another time. These include that it's not an offence to train animals to fight other animals, nor is it to receive money from the animal fighting. Crimes of neglect are hard to prosecute due to the term wilful neglect, which is outdated language. There is no specific offence for particularly violent or brutal crimes against animals, and cattle and other working animals actually have more protection than other species. We have specific proposals on these matters that we would be pleased to discuss with you at another time.

To conclude, I want to draw your attention to what the CFHS is doing to improve conviction rates against those who commit acts of animal cruelty. This January the CFHS launched the national centre for the prosecution of animal cruelty to provide resources to crown prosecutors who are looking at cases such as these ones that you have heard today. The centre provides support and information to the community that reflect current best practices in prosecuting animal cruelty.

As the national voice for animal welfare in Canada, ensuring that the Criminal Code effectively protects animals is, and always will be, an important focus for us. We are grateful that you are considering Bill C-35.

Thank you.

[Staff Sergeant Troy Carriere, Staff Sergeant, Canine and Flight Operations Section, Edmonton Police Service]

Good afternoon.

I have a prepared statement that I'll read to everybody this afternoon because it has a direct link to why we're here.

On October 7, 2013, a police service dog, Quanto, and his handler, Matt Williamson, were called to the area of 90 Street and 118th Avenue at 5:15 a.m. in regard to a stolen vehicle in the city of Edmonton. A pursuit with the stolen vehicle began through downtown Edmonton. The stolen vehicle struck a median near a service station, was disabled, and the driver fled on foot. The suspect refused to follow police direction to stop. As a result, police service dog Quanto was deployed to apprehend the subject. The suspect was engaged by Quanto in the parking lot near the RCMP K division, which is also located in the city of Edmonton. During the apprehension, the suspect stabbed Quanto numerous times. The individual then dropped the knife and was taken into custody by police. PSD Quanto was rushed to an emergency veterinarian clinic but sadly died from his wounds at approximately 5:30 a.m. on October 7.

The suspect, Paul Vukmanich, 27 years of age, was wanted on a Canada-wide warrant for his arrest for armed robbery. He was subsequently charged with several weapons offences, resist arrest, and cruelty to animals.

The loss of PSD Quanto was devastating to every member of the Edmonton police service canine unit, especially Constable Williamson and his young family. Hundreds of emails, phone calls, Facebook posts, and other messages over social media were sent to the Edmonton Police Service. There was overwhelming response and support from the community and other policing agencies from across Canada. This tragic event struck a public nerve that, in my 22 years of policing, I have never been witness to.

On February 28, 2014, Vukmanich—again, 27 years of age—pleaded guilty to animal cruelty and other offences including evading police. Crown and defence lawyers recommended a plea deal for 26 months. The presiding judge specifically said that 18 months of the sentence was for the dog's death. While the judge said he wanted to impose more time, he decided that the recommendation wasn't so out of line that he could overrule it. The conviction was a precedent for animal cruelty charges.

The crown had also requested on behalf of the Edmonton police service that Vukmanich be ordered to pay the estimated $40,000 to police to cover the costs of a new dog and its training, and that's a very conservative cost. The judge said that the restitution matter should be handled by a civil court. This placed a financial burden on the Edmonton Police Service as a result of Vukmanich's actions that day.

The animal cruelty charge was successfully prosecuted in this case, but having participated in this process, I did feel there was a significant gap. The animal cruelty charge is very wide in its scope and was not designed to speak to specific incidents involving service animals who are poisoned, injured, or killed while in the execution of their duties by the illegal actions of an individual or individuals, whether intentional or recklessly committed.

Bill C-35, in my opinion, will address the need to have a specific offence section that addresses such incidents that unfortunately service animals face on an all too common basis. The way the bill is framed is pretty common-sense based and uses plain language. This will allow law enforcement and crown prosecutors to align the appropriate charge section with a specific incident.

As in all criminal offences, there is a wide range on the spectrum of what the alleged crime was, the circumstances leading up to the incident, and what the appropriate punishment should be. Regarding the adage of whether the punishment fits the crime, I believe that Bill C-35 does have the appropriate dual-offence sentencing criteria.

As an indictable offence, the minimum sentence is appropriate in my opinion. A significant event would have to take place, such as the death of a police service dog, for a crown prosecutor to proceed with an indictable offence. Therefore, I support a six-month imprisonment term. There has to be a deterrent, or in some cases, consequences to prevent further offences.

As a summary offence, I feel it's very important that a fine be an option, as there is a significant financial burden on law enforcement. This can be seen not only in the loss of law enforcement service animals but veterinarian bills, loss of time for a canine team, and the overtime that usually results while a service animal recovers from its injuries.

Since the inception of the Edmonton Police Service canine unit in 1967, there have been five police service dogs killed in the line of duty. These range from being struck by a vehicle while pursuing a suspect to stabbings and gunshots.

Fortunately these incidents are rare, but in the past 10 years we've had two other police service dogs survive after being stabbed, and others struck with objects, punched, kicked, pepper-sprayed, and attacked by other dogs.

Without a doubt, canine teams across Canada have one of the most difficult jobs, with the most unknowns and the most hazards in the communities that they serve. But that is also why these dedicated and impassioned police officers sign up to do the job. This is why they train, why they mentally prepare for every possible situation that can think of, and then put it into action when it comes time.

Regardless of all the training and preparation, some situations that occur, such as the event on October 7, 2013, can shock and devastate the most experienced handler. I believe we owe it to law enforcement animals to provide a level of protection. They dedicate their lives to the protection of the communities they serve, and some make the ultimate sacrifice when necessary, with total disregard for themselves.

Thank you.