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]

Thank you very much.

The other thing I wanted to let you know is that we have four meetings in this section before there's another constituency week. The mover of the motion that we postpone Bill C-587, increasing parole ineligibility, has come back to me and asked that we do clause-by-clause on it, which is fair. We were about to do it but he asked to look at the bill, and he wants it done now. I have scheduled next Monday to do clause-by-clause on Bill C-587, the parole ineligibility act.

Next Wednesday after that I think we should have a subcommittee on agenda. I can't get the minister here. I thought I could get the minister here to start Bill C-35, Quanto’s law, but I can't get him here because he's not available that day. What I thought we would do is get together as a subcommittee, figure out the schedule for the last eight weeks, and I'll do my best to find out when the minister is available for mains and for Quanto’s Law, and all that. That is the schedule unless you have any questions.

We're dealing with this today. We're dealing with it on Wednesday with more witnesses, then clause-by-clause on Bill C-587, and then a subcommittee on agenda in these two weeks. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you for your patience on that.

Our witnesses today for the first hour are from the Office of the Correctional Investigator. Mr. Sapers is the correctional investigator and Mr. Zinger is the executive director and general counsel. The floor is yours for 10 minutes or longer, if you need it.

The floor is yours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

No we're not travelling; it didn't get approved.

On the 11th, which is this week, we are continuing our discussion of the fetal alcohol study. Thank you to everyone for submitting witnesses. We've contacted them all. We will have committee meetings on March 11, 23, which is the Monday, and 25. That will cover off all the committee members' witnesses whose names were submitted.

There are a few, if you are interested, who have turned us down, not wanting to appear. You can check with the clerk whether they were yours. Even with that, we can still accommodate them if they change their minds.

The issue I need to bring forward is this. The request from the House is that we report back by the 26th, but if we finish seeing witnesses on the 25th, having a report done by the 26th is virtually impossible. So with your indulgence, I'm going to ask that we get that date extended to the first week back after the two weeks in April. Is that okay? I think if you all talk to your whips, we can maybe do it with unanimous consent in the House and get that done.

Those are the two things that we have. We have that and then we have March 30 and April 1 still not taken, and obviously it will depend on what we see with this bill. So we have Quanto's law, Bill C-35; the drunk driving bill; and the mains that we could deal with.

Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law)

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

My question for her is the same that I have asked a number of members who spoke to Bill C-35.

The Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women surprised me. Although this was originally a private member's bill, it has suddenly become a huge priority for this government.

Does the government not have priorities other than extensively debating a bill on which members are unanimous in many respects? Does my colleague find that worrisome?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of C-35, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to law enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals, Quanto's law.

In contradiction to the comments just made by the opposition members, I think these are actually very important pieces of legislation to discuss and move forward. This one actually has a huge impact on all Canadians.

This bill is named after Quanto, a dedicated and decorated Edmonton Police Service animal that was killed last year while assisting in the apprehension of a fleeing subject. Quanto's death was widely reported across the country. It reignited efforts by police to have the Criminal Code amended to specifically criminalize acts on law enforcement animals and, more importantly, to recognize the valuable services they provide to Canadians, slightly in contrast to what the opposition member commented on earlier.

A commitment was made in the Speech from the Throne. I am pleased to be able to speak about this very important bill today. I am also pleased to see that the bill has proposed and would provide specific protections, not just to law enforcement animals but to other kinds of service animals, mainly military animals and service animals that assist individuals with disabilities.

Having seen the assistance that these animals provide, particularly for those individuals who have disabilities, I think this is extremely important and something that Canadians overwhelmingly support.

The proposed amendments would amend the Criminal Code to create a specific offence prohibiting the wilful and unlawful killing or injury of a law enforcement, service, or military animal. The bill defines each of these terms:

...“law enforcement animal” means a dog or horse that is trained to aid a law enforcement officer in carrying out that officer’s duties.

While the focus of this bill has properly been on Quanto, a German shepherd, I think it is important to recall that horses are also still a significant part of Canadian law enforcement agencies. For example, police service animals are used in crowd control situations. They are well suited for this type of patrol activity, as long as they are trained properly. Officers on the horses have a commanding view of the crowd.

More importantly, the added height and visibility the horses give their riders serve in both ways: they allow officers to see what is going on in the wider area, but they also allow people in that area to know where the officers are. This helps deter crime, but it also helps people find the officers when they need them.

I had first-hand experience with this, having been in New York City in an urgent circumstance. I was in downtown New York, travelling with my younger sibling. She is a diabetic, and she experienced a reaction. I had taken her out of the cab we were in, and the first person I saw was a law enforcement officer on horseback, who came immediately to our aid and was able to support us.

I would not have seen such individuals if they were just walking in the crowd. I was able to see the officer immediately and got care immediately for my sibling, and she was actually taken to a hospital within a few minutes.

That is very similar to incidents like one in May 2010, when two street vendors in New York sought help after they saw smoke rising from what turned out to be a crude car bomb. Again, it was an opportunity for citizens to react, to know where help is, to move to those police officers who could respond and clearly help innocent bystanders, moving them out of the way, and to help the circumstances.

In an emergency, the horses are able to move through the crowd easily. During non-emergency situations, horses and officers are typically well received by crowds. Well-trained horses do not spook when they hear loud noises or sudden bangs, and they stand firm and calm, often calming the crowd.

I am certain members will also recall a very high-profile incident that occurred in 2006, when Brigadier, an eight-year-old Toronto Police Service horse, was killed in the line of duty by a motor vehicle whose driver barrelled into the horse and mounted officer. Both of Brigadier's front legs were broken, the left one shattered so badly that he never could have recovered. Brigadier had to be put down after a long term of service.

A military animal, according to the new act:

...means an animal that is trained to aid a member of the Canadian Forces in carrying out that member’s duties.

A service animal is defined as:

....an animal that is required by a person with a disability for assistance and is certified, in writing, as having been trained by a professional service animal institution to assist a person with a disability.

Most Canadians see this work every day. They see these animals in the workplace and community aiding individuals with disabilities so they can get better access to their community and all of their surroundings.

The conduct described by the offence is also prohibited under the more general animal cruelty offences, which apply to all animals. However, their targeted nature reflects the somewhat distinct harm caused when a service animal is attacked, relative to animals that might otherwise just be pets, for instance.

The new offence would carry a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment on indictment, and 18 months and/or a fine of up to $10,000 on summary conviction. This is also consistent with the sentencing range for the more general animal cruelty offences. However, Bill C-35 would require courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence as sentencing objectives in respect of the new offence.

Many have spoken in this chamber about the importance of protecting law enforcement animals and animals that perform valuable services for other government agencies, such as the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Forces. However, I will speak specifically to the aspect of the legislation with respect to protecting service animals, which perform tasks that permit individuals with disabilities to live more independent lives.

Like their counterparts that assist police services, service animals perform a variety of functions. Perhaps the most well known to most Canadians are seeing-eye dogs that assist visually impaired individuals to navigate through their daily lives. These animals, in particular, have opened up wide and far-reaching experiences for Canadians with visible and visual disabilities.

However, there other kinds of service animals. Just as guide dogs are trained to alert their owners to potential hazards they cannot see, hearing dogs are similarly trained with respect to fire alarms and to make sure that those with hearing impairments are well taken care of.

For children who have a dog that hears for them, it allows them to more purposely participate in their everyday school activities and, quite frankly, interact with all of their classmates. It allows them to know when the bell rings so they can go out from school. Therefore, it would be a travesty if at any point in time one of these animals were injured, because it would severely limit these children's opportunity to participate in their daily lives at school.

People with mental disabilities make use of psychiatric service dogs to retrieve medications, activate a medical alert, or to be led out of a crowd when anxious.

A person who has epilepsy or other seizure disorders may have a seizure alert assist dog, a seizure response dog, or animal to alert him or her when a seizure might be upcoming. The animal will steer their owner away from danger during a seizure or something that may activate a medical challenge.

Other types of service dogs can assist persons with physical disabilities, whether helping someone out of a wheelchair, carrying specific objects, pushing buttons, using the elevator, or providing balance for a person with mobility challenges.

I can tell members that these animals play a pivotal role for Canadians with disabilities. It means that they can better integrate into their communities. It means that they can go out and enjoy time with their friends, as opposed to staying only at home. It often means just functioning well at home for the basic necessities so they can lead more independent lives.

As I have said before, making sure that these animals are well protected and protected under the Criminal Code is essential. The limitations for these Canadians if they did not have service would be devastating.

The training of a service animal is an expensive proposition and represents months of work. These animals must be trained to be good natured and obedient in a variety of circumstances, to protect their owners, and to interact well with the public. Some breeds are better than others, but we know that dogs are mostly chosen because they are friendly, loyal, and patient. Typically, a potential service animal undergoes extensive behavioural training before being accepted into a training program

Service dogs work with their disabled partners to enable them to have more independence and freedom. Therefore, I think we should be thanking the individuals who train these animals and the animals themselves for their service and companionship.

I am pleased to support this bill and encourage all here in the House of Commons to support it, because it so overwhelmingly helps individuals with disabilities to lead more independent lives and to integrate better into Canadian society.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by commending you, because that does not happen very often in this place. Your reminder about relevance in reference to the speech that was just given by the member for Timmins—James Bay is very important.

Oftentimes in this place, Mr. Speaker, each one of us has aspects of our representation about which we are very passionate. In the case of the member for Timmins—James Bay and the first nations people who are in his riding, he is very concerned. The striking comment from the police officer when they found that young aboriginal woman's body and when he compared that to the fact that Canadians would be more concerned about puppies, that was of course a flashpoint for my friend from Timmins—James Bay.

I know you were attentive, Mr. Speaker, because you allowed that debate to go perhaps a little long, straying away and then bringing it back with his comments. I appreciate the fact that you had the understanding of the passion, and I just want to commend you for that. That is not something that is usually done in this place.

I think the other reason for the frustration level for members on this side of the House is not that we are not supportive of bills and legislation to protect animals and service animals like the police or RCMP dogs, horses, or other animals. In fact the NDP has supported bills in this House before. I recall Bill C-232 and Bill C-592.

It is the fact that here we are, having a fulsome debate on this, which is more than reasonable, following times when we have had far more complicated legislation before the House and have had time allocation forced on us, more than 80 times now by my reckoning. Once in a while that level of frustration will percolate to the top in the comments we are making.

I can understand my friend, the member for Timmins—James Bay, expressing those concerns earlier.

I also want to commend the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, the critic for the NDP, who reviewed Bill C-35, Quanto's law, for us and offered her recommendations and thoughts.

I might be able to bring a kind of unique perspective to this debate. In 1996, I was putting together, at that time, the largest civil demonstration in the history of our country in Hamilton. It was a protest against the Conservative government of Mike Harris at the time. We wound up with 105,000 people on the streets of Hamilton.

The point I wanted to make is that I had 28 years in the labour movement and, from time to time, either on picket lines or in various demonstrations, I have observed people who are taking part who quite often were provocateurs outside of the activists who had put together the particular event. I have seen on occasion where they had plans, for instance, to injure the horses of police officers with screwdrivers and implements like that.

I understand that when we are dealing with the use of service dogs and horses in crowd control in those circumstances, sometimes there are people who are very extreme.

In our case in Hamilton in 1996, we met with police services and the fire service, and I had individuals in charge of our security. We had 500 of our own marshals. At that particular event, we had about 40 troublemakers—I will not call them activists—who came with the intent of disrupting the event. We were able to discuss the matter with them and with our own marshals and limit their activities to the point where they peacefully demonstrated.

In the end, we can see the importance of having some kind of reaction to the abuse or killing of police service animals. We are in support of this bill going to committee. We do have some problems with the assignment of actual penalties, where the judge does not get to make the decisions. We believe we put our judges in courts to guide us and lead us in the law and to make those appropriate decisions.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to sincerely thank you for the reminder you just gave us.

I would like to begin by saying that, despite the comparisons that were just being made between the government's treatment of aboriginal children and the bill before us, it is important to note that the NDP condemns all forms of animal cruelty. We have long defended that position, and the legislation and bills we have introduced clearly demonstrate that.

It has been said before, but I will say it again: every time this government introduces a bill, the devil is often in the details. I will come back to that in my speech.

We are supporting Bill C-35. I want to reiterate that as well. We feel it is important, as the official opposition, that this be bill passed at second reading so that it can be sent to committee for study. We need to get expert opinions on some of the provisions and proposals in this bill. Once again, with the Conservatives, the devil is in the details. That said, the bill itself is commendable, and that needs to be said.

I am a Cree from Bay James, in northern Quebec. In fact, I come from the last generation of northern Quebec Cree who were born in the forest, in a tent, and who used sled dogs to survive. I remember that when I was young, growing up, we made long treks with our sled dogs.

I remember that after four hours with dogs that had pulled several sleds—there was more than one, since we were a large family— we would stop to take a break and have a little something to eat, and I was tasked with letting the dogs loose. It was the first thing that needed to be done because it was a sign of respect to take the dogs out of their harnesses and feed them first, before we had even had tea and food. That is my culture. I simply wanted to share it with the House.

Speaking of sled dogs, it is also important to remember that according to the Inuit, in the 1950s and 1960s, the RCMP was ordered to slaughter all of the sled dogs in the Arctic and the far north, including in part of my riding, Nunavik. They slaughtered the Inuit's sled dogs so they could force the people into communities to live by their rules.

In 2011, the Government of Quebec wisely recognized the impact of those government actions. It apologized to the Inuit of Nunavik. I know that in 2006, there was a report by Parliament and the RCMP on that. However, they absolved themselves of all responsibility in their own review.

Earlier, I talked about how it is important for this bill to go to committee so that the experts can have a look at it.

I said that because the government is once again trying to impose six-month-long consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for crimes under Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals). We think this bill has to go to committee for study so that experts can tell us, for example, how the mandatory minimum sentences contradict various rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada.

I would like to share two examples. The first is from Gladue. I am sure everyone remembers that important 1999 Supreme Court decision. It mentioned part XXIII of the Criminal Code, which lays out the purpose and basic principles of sentencing as well as the factors judges must take into account in determining an appropriate sentence for an offender. This was an important case with respect to sentencing. We have to consider rulings like these because they require judges to take certain factors into account in sentencing, particularly for aboriginal people.

I would like to read an excerpt from the1999 ruling in the Gladue case. The Supreme Court said that subparagraph 718.2(e):

...requires sentencing judges to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment and to pay particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. The provision is not simply a codification of existing jurisprudence. It is remedial in nature. Its purpose is to ameliorate the serious problem of overrepresentation of aboriginal people in prisons, and to encourage sentencing judges to have recourse to a restorative approach to sentencing.

I am not an expert in sentencing or in the Criminal Code, but I do know a little about the laws of this country, especially Supreme Court decisions, which I take the time to read. Mandatory minimum sentences go against some of the orders handed down from the highest court in the land. It is important to take that into consideration when discussing mandatory minimum sentences.

I will now give the second example, which I have already quoted in the House in another debate on missing and murdered aboriginal women. Today I will again quote from the decision in this important case dealing with sentencing. This also speaks to the importance of inviting experts to tell us how this bill flies in the face of some Supreme Court rulings. Here is what the Supreme Court said in that case, and I will conclude on this point:

When sentencing an Aboriginal offender, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate...for Aboriginal peoples.

The Supreme Court is telling us to go in one direction, but some of the government's bills seem to go in the opposite direction. That is why I believe this bill should be sent to committee for further study.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I found his point of view refreshing.

I think we need to compare Bill C-35, Quanto's law, to other bills and the penalties being imposed in other bills. Is today's bill fair compared to others?

Some bills have gone too far. For some time now, it has been common to see court challenges of the penalties the House of Commons imposes in bills. The government must then rewrite the bills because they often go too far. The courts have been clear about this.

In many cases, the government should perhaps take time to consider and debate bills in committee and hear from experts. This government often does not listen. That is why I think the points my colleague raised were worthwhile and very interesting.

I would like him to comment on the time we are spending on this bill compared to the time we have spent on other bills. Budget implementation bills have been sped through, yet we are taking a lot of time to study bills that have a very narrow scope. Could he speak to that?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues get upset any time that we talk about first nation children or first nation victims in the House. However, I was pointing out, as the member stood up, that I was referring to Bill C-35 and the six-month minimum sentence for abuse of police dogs, and I was comparing this to other government policy. In Bill C-35, we are being asked to talk about invoking minimum sentences for the mistreatment of police dogs, and yet, over on that side, the mistreatment of first nation children under their watch is “too bad, so sad”.

A New Brunswick region internal document entitled, “Education and Social Development Programs and Partnership”, dated November 12, 2012, warns in two sections of the report of the risks, including death to children, through underfunded child welfare programs. It states:

...the continuance of inadequate service delivery in the Agency could lead to exposure of First Nations children to serious harm. [...]

[Further], there would be a significant backlash if a child died as a result of federal funding not being available....

I have seen the House in this last session of Parliament turn into a Potemkin democracy. Important issues of the day are not allowed to be discussed, or they are pushed through in omnibus legislation. However, we have all the time under the sun to talk about the mistreatment of police dogs. I would never support the mistreatment of a dog or cat—I have had dogs and cats my whole life—but I see internal documents that say the government knows that children are at risk of death because of its deliberate underfunding, and the government puts in writing that it would absolutely not give children basic health care and beds that children need so they do not die.

Let us talk about minimum sentences. How about some minimum sentences for the people who have the fiduciary responsibility to look after children under their watch and who leave them with no support? The number of children who have been lost, given up, suffered death, committed suicide, is appalling.

I will go back to the opening statement that I made, from Sergeant O'Donovan of the Winnipeg Police when he found the body of Tina Fontaine. She was an innocent child who had been taken out of her family and put in child welfare and then lost in the system. He said if it were a litter of puppies or kittens, society would be appalled.

We have seen a response from the federal government. Its response was to go after Cindy Blackstock, who brought forward the Human Rights Tribunal case. Its response was to spy on her, to follow her, to break the law in trying to get evidence on her, and to fight these issues all the way through the Human Rights Tribunal.

I will end my speech on this one last case of Pictou Landing, Maurina Beadle, whose son suffered from cerebral palsy, hydrocephalus, and autism. The family fought all the way to the Federal Court of Appeal to get home care for this child, and the government wanted the family to pay legal costs. That is the kind of situation we are dealing with in the House today.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has to be some relevance to the bill before the House. This member has been going on about issues that have nothing to do with Bill C-35, Quanto's law. It is certainly high time that he got back to the bill.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to stand in the House to represent the people of Timmins and the James Bay region as we deal with this bill, Bill C-35, Quanto's law. The bill would bring in mandatory minimum sentences for people who are mean to police dogs.

We have spent a lot of time in this House talking about police dogs, and we have seen the government members sit together and get very teary-eyed when they talk about the treatment of police dogs.

It is seven years almost to day that we stood in this House on another motion, Jordan's principle, which passed on December 7, 2007. It was named after Jordan River Anderson from the Norway House Cree first nation, a young child who had never been able to go home because of his complex medical needs. The federal government refused to pay for his health coverage unless he was in a foster care situation.

Jordan's principle is that all children in Canada, regardless of their race, have a right to equitable health care. The House of Commons stood up, just as it will probably stand up on Quanto's law, and voted for Jordan's principle, and then nothing happened.

When I was thinking about the bill on police dogs, I thought of Sergeant John O'Donovan of the Winnipeg Police who, on August 17, 2014, found the body of Tina Fontaine in the Red River. He told the media, “She's a child. This is a child that's been murdered. Society would be horrified if we found a litter of kittens or pups in the river in this condition. This is a child.”.

It says something. This is nothing against dogs and cats; I have dogs and cats at home. However, when a police officer has to point out that a first nation child who was murdered and dumped in a river would have received more attention if she had been a litter of puppies, it says something.

I want to just compare the values that we are seeing in this House, in terms of mandatory minimum sentences.

I would like to read from draft No. 11, dated November 21, 2012. It is entitled “Jordan's Principle, Case Conferencing to Case Resolution, Federal/Provincial Intake Form”. It is tab 420 in the factum of evidence in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on first nation child services that are being denied by the federal government.

The quote is the following:

Previously healthy 4 year old First Nation Child suffered cardiac arrest and anoxic brain injury while undergoing routine dental extraction. The child is totally dependent for all activities of daily living and requires significant medical and equipment before she can be discharged from [health services].

The items that it said she needs are a Hill-Rom bed for a child, a specialized stroller, a mattress to prevent skin breakdown, a trapeze bar, a portable lift, a bath frame, a Hoyer lift. That is what is needed to look after this child and give her mother the support.

There were over a dozen child welfare agencies looking at what needed to be done to get this child back with her family.

When it came to the bed, the bed that would keep her from suffocating, the specialized bed she needed, the non-insured health benefits of Health Canada said absolutely not; they were not paying for a bed for a child who might suffocate otherwise.

We see in the notes that it was the director of the hospital who had to pay out of his pocket for this child to get a bed because the government had written into its policy that providing that child with a life-saving bed was not a priority.

Yet, here we are today talking about mandatory minimum sentences if we are mean to a police dog.

I would like to read from another report, entitled “Jordan's Principle, Dispute Resolution”, dated May 22, 2009. It is tab 320 in the factum of evidence that has been brought forward against the federal government:

A child with multiple disabilities and/or complex medical needs requires a wheelchair and stroller and requires that a lift and tracking device be installed in his/her family home. [Health Canada] will provide children with only one item every five years. If the item is a wheelchair, [non-insured health benefits] supports the provision of manual wheelchairs only, which must be fitted with special seating inserts in order to accommodate small children.

They would not even pay for an electric wheelchair for a completely incapacitated child. It is in the policy.

Yet, here we are talking about mandatory minimum sentences for people being mean to police dogs.

I will read from an internal government report from British Columbia, INAC and Health Canada, Gaps in Delivery Services to First Nation Children in B.C., dated November 6, 2009, which states:

More and more, dentists and other care providers refuse to deal with Health Canada directly because of very long delays in receiving payment....

There is no funding for basic dental care, even in emergency situations; no money for “basic equipment, e.g. hospital bed”. We have already talked about the fact that it will not pay for hospital beds for children: “too bad, so sad”.

There is no funding for special diets for children who cannot eat solid foods, and no funding so that the guardian can travel with a child to a special needs appointment.

I am not making this up. These are in the tabs. Costs for medications are not approved by the federal government, even though the pediatricians prescribe the medication for the child's condition.

It states:

Children in care are not accessing Mental Health services.... If these children cannot get necessary mental health service, [including assessment for fetal alcohol syndrome], they are unable to access [other education programs].

I will point out that in my region of Treaty 9, the issue of not being able to access mental health services has left us with horrific levels of suicide. If children or young people come forward to say that they are depressed or suicidal, the only option is to put them into foster care and take them away from their community. Any other community would provide counselling, but that is not allowed because it is not in the policy. Yet, we have mandatory minimum sentences being discussed today for being mean to police dogs.

I would like to talk about this idea of mandatory minimum sentences.

In the New Brunswick region, we have an internal document entitled “Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships”, dated November 2012, tab 298.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, for his speech. I have spoken to this government bill, Bill C-35. We have spent several days and hours on it. In the meantime, we have a budget implementation omnibus bill that we have asked the government to split so that we can discuss it in greater detail.

Is the hon. member not a bit concerned about the fact that we are taking so much time to discuss Bill C-35? I am not trying to take away from its importance, but there seems to be an imbalance in the priorities for this country, whether we are talking about the economy, job creation or adequate public services. Right now we are talking about Bill C-35. Could I have the hon. member's comments on this?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the idea behind Bill C-35—protecting service and law enforcement animals—is a good one.

The NDP is in favour of studying the bill because law enforcement animals are often injured by criminals who could have injured a police officer. Quite often, a police dog is stabbed or shot instead of the police officer. If the criminal had done the same thing to an officer, he would be accused of attempted murder of a police officer. However, since the individual shot at a law enforcement animal, the line of thinking seems to be that he was just shooting at an animal, which is not the same thing. That is why we need more specific protection for these animals.

Service animals are also becoming more common in society. I am not just talking about guide dogs for the blind. For instance, therapy animals give autistic children contact with the real world. Clearly, these animals are not just stray dogs. They may become the eyes of a blind person or the opportunity for an autistic child to communicate and connect with society as a whole. For these reasons, these animals need very specific protections.

Hurting any animal for fun, deliberately and unnecessarily, is terrible, cruel and mean. We should not tolerate that type of behaviour in our society. However, we need to recognize that the harm caused to our society in general when a service or law enforcement animal is injured is a more significant crime.

Personally, I like service dogs. I am always tempted to pet guide dogs whenever I see them. I know you must never do so, but I am always tempted. I almost always have some chocolate in my pockets. Unfortunately, the member for Terrebonne—Blainville takes them from me, which is good for me and works for her. However, I could easily see myself giving a chocolate to a police dog or horse. The police officer might not be okay with that, but I would really like to do that. I adore animals and would never hurt them.

It is important to discuss this bill in committee with experts and with people in these situations, so they can tell us when it is really important to give these animals special protection in the Criminal Code. We need to have this discussion, which is especially important now because these animals are being used more and more. Unfortunately, some terrorist attacks have been committed using explosives. Sniffer dogs are one of the primary resources used to protect the public from these attacks with explosives.

These animals can also help with certain social phenomena, such as children with autism. We want to reintegrate these children into society, and service dogs are being used more and more to help with this. They are also being called upon more and more to help seniors. There will be many such animals, and they will become more and more helpful. Depriving someone who needs the assistance of a service animal is appalling. That is a serious crime. Attacking someone's animal is the same as attacking the person, since the animal is like an extension of the person, helping them with their senses or their mobility.

Clearly, then, yes, it is important to protect these animals, but as usual, the NDP has a few concerns regarding the minimum penalties. This will be discussed in committee.

I have the sinking feeling that the government is not listening to the Supreme Court when it renders decisions or to the great legal minds when they say that minimum sentences do not work. We should let the judges do their jobs and not try to give them so little discretion that they feel uncomfortable.

All of the courts, including the Supreme Court, have rendered decisions before. I am thinking, for example, of the minimum sentence for possessing a prohibited weapon. Let us look at one of the cases on which a judge ruled. An individual went to visit friends and they were a bit drunk. They were having fun. One of them pulled out an illegal revolver and began playing around with it. Another friend filmed the whole thing on his telephone. The person who was holding the weapon committed a criminal offence. He was charged and faced five years in prison because that is the minimum sentence.

The judge said that it was clear that this person was not particularly bright, and everyone can agree that what he did was not a good idea. However, putting an individual in prison for five years because he played around with an illegal revolver at a friend's home does not make sense.

The judge said that he was not going to take into account the Criminal Code provisions dealing with possession of a prohibited firearm. I am sorry, but he was right. Imagine putting someone in prison for doing something stupid for 15 seconds. That person did not threaten anyone with a firearm and did not commit armed robbery. He simply held a firearm when he was a bit drunk at a party and was filmed doing so.

One of my colleagues from British Columbia was saying that a minimum sentence should be imposed for kidnapping a minor. We want to protect children and doing so is a good thing. However, he proposed a rather harsh prison sentence, and that could cause problems.

A young man who is 18 years old and therefore considered an adult has a 16-year-old girlfriend and they break up. He is not happy. He wants to talk to her, so he takes her by the arm and drags her to his car. That becomes kidnapping because it involves an act of violence. He dragged her to the car by force. Clearly, this young man has problems and needs to change his behaviour. He completely deserves to get a strict talking to by a judge.

Still, do insensitivity and boorish conduct merit 15 years in prison? If a young man, just 18 years old, snaps and does something stupid like this, should he be sent to jail for 15 years? That does not make sense. The punishment has to fit the crime.

That is why we are against minimum sentences. We have to let judges judge. They are the ones who hear all of the information about the case and every possible defence.

If a young man kidnaps his girlfriend because he wants to force her to listen to him, not a lot can be said in his defence. However, he might say that he is in university and will do volunteer work. He might ask for a lesser sentence so that his whole life does not end up going down the drain because of that one time he did the stupidest thing imaginable. That kind of behaviour does not deserve the social stigma associated with a disproportionate prison sentence.

We have every reason to send this bill to committee, where members can listen to what the expert witnesses have to say. One of these days, the government will have to listen to the message judges have been sending them about how displeased they are with minimum sentences. The government will have to listen to that message, pay attention and act accordingly.

The House resumed from October 27 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.

Business of the House

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the comments on our commitment to veterans made by all of my colleagues opposite are completely untrue, our commitment to our veterans in this country in terms of the level of funding we have given them has been unprecedented. Frankly, there has not been one nickel that we have clawed back from veterans. In fact, we have spent over $5 billion more on veterans since taking office than the previous government.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind all members, once again, on the eve of this year's Grey Cup, that the Saskatchewan Roughriders are the defending Grey Cup champions. They are known not only as Saskatchewan's team but also Canada's team. I ask all members to once again applaud the efforts of the Saskatchewan Roughriders, as they are the backbone of the CFL, our great football institution in this country. I see that my colleagues share my enthusiasm.

It is a pleasure to rise this afternoon on behalf of the government House leader to give the weekly business statement to my colleague opposite. This afternoon, we will continue with the NDP opposition day debate. Tomorrow, we will return to second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, also known as Quanto's law.

On Monday, before question period, we will start the second reading debate on Bill S-6, the Yukon and Nunavut regulatory improvement act. This bill is the final step toward completing the legislative portion of Canada's action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes. After question period, we will start the report stage of Bill C-2, the respect for communities act, which was recently reported back from the public safety committee. This bill will ensure that our communities, and especially parents, will have a say before drug injection sites are opened.

On Tuesday, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-43, the economic action plan 2014 act, No. 2, which has been considered by the hardworking finance committee and several other committees this autumn. Bill C-43 would implement measures from this year's federal budget and other newer measures that would support jobs, economic growth, families, and communities, as well as improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system as the government returns to a balanced budget in 2015.

On Wednesday, we will have yet another NDP opposition day, as confirmed yesterday by the government House leader. That will be our last supply day of the autumn, so we will consider the supplementary estimates and an appropriations bill that evening.

Thursday will see us resume debate on Bill C-40, the Rouge national urban park act, at third reading. My colleagues from the greater Toronto area will be keen to see progress on this legislation, which would create Canada's first urban national park.