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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, we will call to order meeting number 72 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference, Friday, November 28, 2014, we're dealing today with Bill C-35, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals.

We have a panel of four witnesses today, ladies and gentlemen. We'll give them each about 10 minutes for their presentations followed by questions and comments. We will then summarize what we will do with the bill from there.

From the Edmonton Police Service we have S/Sgt Troy Carriere, staff sergeant. From the Canadian Police Canine Association, we have Mr. Stephen Kaye, president. From the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, we have Madam Diane Bergeron, executive director for strategic relations and engagement. From the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, we have Ms. Barbara Cartwright, chief executive officer.

That is the order we will go in.

Mr. Carriere, the floor is yours for 10 minutes.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Françoise Boivin]

I see. It would probably be included in that.

I have one last question for you. It's basically the same one I put to the minister.

I understand that there aren't very many cases in the case law that deal with the same issue. The impact of Bill C-35 is fairly limited. It is a bit difficult for me to understand the logic behind the exclusion of certain kinds of animals. They are covered to some extent, but then, under mandatory minimum sentences, it says that a police dog is more important than, for instance, horses that go to war with people or something like that. It's a bit difficult for me to understand the logic behind that. Why was the distinction made?

I repeat that rising up against animal cruelty doesn't mean we dislike hunters. I heard all sorts of things in the speeches at second reading of Bill C-35. The legislation focuses on three categories. I am trying to understand the logic behind all this. To some, a seeing-eye dog is just as important as a police dog. Any kind of murder is experienced just as dramatically as a police dog's killing. I understand the argument about danger and a higher likelihood of danger. I am trying to understand the department's logic behind the way the bill was drafted.

[Carole Morency]

What you're raising is an issue that's there right now in the Criminal Code. The approach that Bill C-35 takes is really to model the existing offence, but to carve it out specifically for these particular animals. The issue, I think, is more fundamental with all of the provisions there, but it's there now in the Criminal Code between section 429 and the other animal cruelty provisions.

[Carole Morency, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

I'm just going to add that Bill C-35 is proposing a very specific, narrow set of amendments to address a very specific type of issue. I think the comment you're raising has maybe more to do with the whole area of the provisions, because Bill C-35 is just maintaining a similar approach to what's there right now. The reference to subsection 429(2) applies to all of those other provisions, whereas Bill C-35 is only going in to do something very narrow.

Perhaps the issue you're raising is why you have it in both places. It's in both places right now with the existing sections 445 and 429, and Bill C-35 is just maintaining the same approach. There's no inconsistency or enlarging of the approach taken here.

[Michael Zigayer]

Yes, other jurisdictions have specific laws similar to what is proposed in Bill C-35, to create a specific offence for the killing or the injuring of a law enforcement animal, and even in some cases with regard to service animals.

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

Good afternoon.

The minister answered questions about mandatory minimum sentences during the first hour. You probably expected to be asked about the same issue.

Did the department review the bill and the inclusion of mandatory minimum sentences in Bill C-35 with respect to the Supreme Court's new ruling in R. v. Nur? Do you think the bill complies with the Supreme Court's decision?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you, Minister, for your time today kicking us off on Bill C-35.

Members should know that I'm unfortunately due somewhere at 4:30. You may have noticed the Japanese delegation that was here for a bit.

I thank the minister for meeting with them briefly after question period. Actually, the head of their delegation used to be their minister of justice. It was an interesting opportunity to meet with them.

I'm going to talk to them about budgeting and estimates, Madame Péclet, which I love. I'm off to that.

We're going to suspend. We'll turn the second half of the meeting over to the vice-chair, Madame Boivin, with four officials.

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

One of the differences between the new provision in Bill C-35 and the provisions in the section on animal cruelty is the notion of lawful excuse.

Paragraph 445(1)(a) of the Criminal Code only uses the word “wilfully”, with no mention of lawful excuse.

Can you give us some examples of what would constitute a lawful excuse? How would that apply in certain situations, such as a demonstration or an airport or customs search? It's not just a matter of law enforcement animals, but also of law enforcement officers. What would be a lawful excuse in some of those cases?

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

Do you feel that the courts haven't prosecuted enough? What about this article couldn't be applied to specific circumstances that would be applied by the courts by Bill C-35? What is the difference? What is the difference between the new articles we're going to put in, the new infraction, and the sections such as, for instance, section 445? Is it only the minimum sentence that would be considered or are there other circumstances that weren't included in the section about cruelty to animals?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you for your question.

Quanto's case is not unique. Other similar cases have come before the criminal court.

Obviously, in the case of Quanto, there was a conviction obtained by the crown under a different section of the Criminal Code. What the sentencing judge did there, I suspect, is look at the fact that this was a police animal, as an aggravating circumstance as opposed to a specific offence, which is what we're talking about here.

While there isn't a great deal of accumulated case law on this particular subject matter, there is some. Mr. Casey said that it's somewhere in the range of 10 cases. I think we looked at 12 to 15. There were a few others, perhaps, that didn't show up because they were provincial court cases and perhaps not as prominent.

Again, the Quanto's case and the resulting Bill C-35 is an attempt to encapsulate the specific role and the specific purpose these animals play, above and beyond an animal that is a pet or an animal that is kept for domestic purposes. Again, one of the more horrific examples of animal abuse is these puppy mills, where they raise animals for the sole purpose of mass-producing them, and they're abused. Dogfighting is another specific example in the Criminal Code.

In answer to your question, we didn't have a great deal of case law to depend on. We looked at Quanto's and the circumstances there. We consulted with police and those officials who work directly with animals and determined that this was a value proposition to put a specific law in place to protect those animals.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I am very happy to have some time to ask you questions. Thank you for appearing before us.

My first question is about the situations you considered when drafting the bill. In the case law, which legislation have crown prosecutors been using to convict people of animal cruelty, such as in the Quanto case? Of course, Bill C-35 did not yet exist.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

You also touched on the wording of Bill C-35. In a sense, by saying without a “reasonable excuse”, doesn't that add to the argument, at that point in time, that those unforeseen or unforeseeable reasonable cases that could arise from a specific situation then would be corrected by the fact that it wouldn't fall in Bill C-35?

As well, why exclude, from the mandatory minimum sentence, the other type of animals that are included in the infraction? Are you making different classes of dogs and horses?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here to discuss Bill C-35. I have a few questions for you.

This bill essentially has support. However, things have changed in our legal landscape since the bill was passed at second reading, before being referred to the committee. I am talking about the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Nur. You partially reacted to that decision by anticipating issues that would be raised regarding mandatory minimum sentences.

Concerning the Nur ruling, I don't really agree with your comment in the National Post. I did not see the ruling as quite the endorsement of your mandatory minimum sentences as you did, but I agree that it also does not indicate that mandatory minimum sentences are illegal. I may be less of a fan of the decision than you.

I will now talk about Bill C-35 itself.

Have you met with Department of Justice officials since the Nur decision to look at the impact it could have, especially its obiter dictum on mandatory minimum sentences and the two criteria to be met? Have you asked the Justice Canada officials to consider that? If so, what did they say? How can the criterion set out in the Supreme Court decision be met with regard to a mandatory minimum sentence? It is also hybrid and should not be left to the discretion of the crown. How do you think the criterion can be met at both levels? If the punishment is not cruel and unusual, the second criterion is used. Here is a quote from the chief justice: ...the second question is whether the provision’s reasonably foreseeable applications would impose cruel and unusual punishment on other offenders

Have the officials answered those two questions?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dear colleagues, I am happy to be here to discuss the bill on service animals.

It's always a pleasure to be with you, colleagues. We're here, as you know, to discuss yet another piece of criminal justice legislation that the government believes will contribute to making Canadian communities safer.

I thank you in advance for this committee's hard work and commitment to do a thorough and rigorous review of important bills, both government and private members'. I hope that my remarks today will assist you somewhat in the review of Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, referred to colloquially as Quanto's law.

Quanto, as many of you will know, was an Edmonton police dog that was fatally stabbed on October 7, 2013, while assisting police in apprehending a suspect. The tragic killing of this beautiful law enforcement animal struck a chord with a lot of Canadians, and many in the police, legal, and community groups called for greater recognition and protection of service animals.

Bill C-35 fulfills a 2013 commitment in the Speech from the Throne to enact a law such this in recognition of the daily risks undertaken by animals used by police to assist them in enforcing the law and protecting society.

Quanto's killing was also the most recent instance in which a police service animal was killed in the course of a police operation, and there are other examples that I'm sure you will be studying.

In addition to proposing to create a new Criminal Code offence that would specifically prohibit the killing or wounding of a law enforcement animal, Bill C-35 would also extend specific protection to trained service animals that assist persons with disabilities and military animals that assist the Canadian Forces in carrying out their duties.

The members of this committee, I'm sure, are aware that the person who killed Quanto was subsequently convicted under existing section 445 of the Criminal Code for the wilful killing of a dog, along with other offences arising out of the same set of events on October 7, 2013.

The criminal responsible was sentenced as a result to a total of 26 months in prison on various charges, of which the sentencing judge attached 18 months specifically for the killing of Quanto. The court also banned him from owning a pet for 25 years and banned him from driving for five years. In sentencing the offender, the judge stated, “The attack on this dog wasn't just an attack on a dog. It was an attack on your society and what is meaningful in our society”.

The government agrees wholeheartedly with this sentiment and believes that the creation of a specific Criminal Code offence, coupled with a specially tailored sentencing regime, would contribute to the denunciation, both general and specific, as well as deterrence of such crimes. These are well-known sentencing principles, I know, for this committee.

I would like to take a moment to review with you just what Bill C-35 proposes in terms of amendments to the Criminal Code.

Just to turn quickly to the substance of this bill, the bill would clearly define which animals would fall within its ambit.

Secondly, the legislation sets out the element of the new offence. The prescribed conduct is the killing, maiming, wounding, poisoning, or injuring of a law enforcement animal while it is aiding a law enforcement officer in carrying out the officer's duty and a military animal while it is aiding a member of the Canadian Armed Forces in carrying out that member's duties or a service animal performing its tasks.

The necessary mental element is wilful and without lawful excuse, a common standard used in the Criminal Code, in order that accidental or negligent conduct would not be criminalized by this new offence. Obviously, there is a great deal of discretion within the courts for findings of fact based on evidence.

Finally, thirdly, similar to the existing section 445 of the Criminal Code, “Injuring or endangering other animals”, the new offence would be subject to a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment when the accused is prosecuted on indictment and 18 months imprisonment or a $10,000 fine for a summary conviction. So there's a hybrid element to the offence.

It is the sentencing regime that distinguishes this new offence from section 445, and it does so by introducing a provision, section 718.03, which expressly directs the sentencing court to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence as sentencing objectives in respect of this new offence.

This provision will apply whether the animal in question is a law enforcement animal, military, or service animal. However, with regard to an offence committed against a law enforcement animal, Bill C-35 would require the sentence imposed for the offence to be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender for an offence committed at the same time. And as is the case where a law enforcement animal is killed while assisting a law enforcement officer in carrying out his duties, and the offence is prosecuted by way of indictment—so there is a selection here—the offender would be liable to a mandatory minimum penalty of six months. This joins the some 60 other mandatory minimum penalties already found in the Criminal Code.

During second reading of this bill I was pleased to note there was broad support across party lines for it. I see this as one of the more non-partisan issues and non-partisan legislation that may come before this committee. In fact, there is a great deal of support for the enactment of the provisions in the Criminal Code that deal with the intentional injuring and killing of law enforcement animals, military animals, or service animals.

At the same time, I acknowledge that there will no doubt be questions raised with regard to the proposed mandatory minimum penalties, where a law enforcement animal is killed while assisting a law enforcement officer engaged in enforcing the law and prosecuted by indictment. To pre-empt the questions that I know will come, I believe that a mandatory minimum penalty is warranted in these instances, both for general and specific deterrence and denunciation of this type of offence involving service animals. Like members of the military, members of the police, some of whom are members of this committee, these are service animals that are in harm's way—it's the only way I can describe it. They are doing a duty that is a higher calling expected of an animal, in the same way that police officers, of course, assume a certain degree of danger and liability.

Therefore, with respect to the mandatory minimum penalties imposed by this bill, I would ask the committee to take note that this provision was carefully tailored in several ways.

First, the prospect of the mandatory minimum penalty being imposed only arises in regard to the intentional killing of a law enforcement animal while aiding a law enforcement officer in carrying out those duties.

Second, the potential application of the mandatory minimum is further limited by the fact that it would only apply where the crown prosecutor proceeds by way of indictment. Prosecutorial discretion is always exercised, with a careful eye to proportionality, constitutionality, and totality, the same considerations used by a judge. Where the crown elects to prosecute this offence as a summary conviction, the mandatory minimum penalties, obviously, don't apply.

Finally, in terms of the length of the mandatory term of imprisonment, the six-month term of imprisonment is at the lower end of the range.

I would pause here to underscore, as I mentioned earlier, that the judge who sentenced Quanto's killer specifically imposed an 18-month sentence of the 26 months that were handed down for the killing of that service animal.

Bill C-35 also proposes to amend the Criminal Code to require that a sentence imposed for an assault on a police officer, or certain other peace officers, will be served consecutively with other sentences imposed on the offender arising out of the same set of circumstances.

We are strongly of the view that attacks on those officials who work on our behalf to protect society also represent an attack on our society and that such a provision is justified to express society's denunciation of such conduct and as a general deterrent.

To conclude, Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to answer questions by you and members of the committee with regard to this important bill.

I again thank you for the work of this committee. I'll take the opportunity to thank all those members of police, military, and those who use service animals for things such as comfort and mental health counselling that we are now seeing through canine and equine companionship, which is an extraordinary use of animals in society.

For the furtherance of the principles of justice, we had a recent example of a dog in the Edmonton Police Service which accompanied a child who was obviously feeling the trauma of a sexual assault. That dog was allowed to be on the stand with that young girl while she gave her testimony. I think this is the type of innovation that actually brings great credit to our justice system, and it shows and highlights some of the great people we have working alongside those animals to further the interests of justice.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to call to order meeting number 71 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We are televised today.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, November 28, 2014, we're going to be dealing with Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals).

We are fortunate to have the Hon. Peter MacKay, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, to lead us off for the first hour of discussion on this particular bill.

Minister MacKay.