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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP House leader for his usual Thursday question, his optimism, and his hope. We are happy to see optimism and hope over there. I can assure members that on this side of the House we share some of that optimism and hope, and we look forward to better days for the NDP.

I also want to thank him for his program of daily concurrence motions this autumn. It has meant that practically every day we have had a chance to have a say on the hard work our committees do and specifically on the report the NDP tabled between the throne speech and the summer adjournment. In just the last five sittings since my last Thursday statement, this House has considered and adopted reports prepared by the Canadian heritage committee, the veterans affairs committee, the finance committee, and even the procedure and House affairs committee.

As a former international trade minister, I took great joy in seeing our debate and vote on the agriculture committee's report on the Canada-Europe free trade agreement. The NDP's concurrence motion allowed my colleague, the agriculture minister's parliamentary secretary, to bring forward his own motion reflecting the developments that followed the committee's work calling on the House of Commons to endorse this free trade agreement. In the past, the committee and the NDP had expressed concerns that they could not commit to a position until the agreement's text was available. Now that the agreement's text is available, they had an opportunity to endorse it right here in this House. Having seen the text of that agreement, I was disappointed that the NDP voted against it. It would be the single largest boost to the Canadian economy in a generation, one that would produce billions of dollars annually to the economy.

That being said, we have other business to attend to in this House.

With respect to the business of the House, let me acknowledge the co-operative and productive conversations we and our teams have had this week with the other parties. This afternoon and tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading. Monday, we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act.

Tuesday morning we will consider Bill C-40, the Rouge national urban park act, at report stage and third reading. In the afternoon, we will switch to the third reading debate on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, which I hope will be passed quickly given the apparent support for it.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act.

Next Thursday will be the sixth allotted day when the NDP will bring forward a proposal for debate.

Wrapping up next week, on Friday we will have the fourth day of second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, which is known more affectionately as Quanto's law.

Finally, for the benefit of all of the committees of this House and their planning, following some consultation with my counterparts, I am currently looking at Wednesday, December 3, for the final allotted day. However, I will formally confirm that sometime next week, I expect.

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

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first time rising in the House since the events of last week, I would simply like to take this opportunity to commend the work of our police officers, our House of Commons security forces and the RCMP, and all their courageous deeds.

On behalf of the people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, I wish to extend our sincere condolences to Nathan Cirillo's family.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals), a Conservative bill that has passed first reading in the House.

I am proud to say that I really hope this bill is examined in committee so that we can hear what many experts and stakeholders think on this matter.

We need to have a closer look at this bill in order to revisit the two most important problems in the bill: the introduction of minimum sentences and consecutive sentences.

In concrete terms, this bill amends section 445 of the Criminal Code by providing for a new offence when a service animal or a law enforcement or military animal is killed or injured in the line of duty. The bill also provides for a minimum sentence of six months if a law enforcement animal is killed in the commission of an offence. It also makes the sentences imposed on a person consecutive to another sentence imposed for any other offence arising out of the same events.

I think the Government of Canada needs to examine bills dealing with animal cruelty. The 157 police dogs in service in Canada and the 53 teams of dogs and trainers with the Canada Border Services Agency are important to Canada's security. They are important resources for our police officers and those who patrol our borders.

There are two important points to note about this bill: it creates another minimum sentence and it makes changes regarding consecutive sentences.

Before I continue, I would like to talk about the current legislative provisions related to animal cruelty. It might be interesting for Canadians to know that presently, according to sections 444 and 445 of the Criminal Code, anyone commits an offence who wilfully kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures cattle or who, wilfully and without lawful excuse, kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures domestic animals.

Subsection 429(2) of the Criminal Code also provides a defence.

(2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under sections 430 to 446 where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right.

The Criminal Code also sets out some provisions concerning animal cruelty, including section 445.1, under which it is an offence to cause unnecessary pain to an animal.

I would remind the House that the NDP introduced a number of bills designed to amend Canadian laws concerning animal cruelty.

In particular, I would like to mention the work of the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park, who introduced Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Criminal Code concerning cruelty to animals in order to repeal animal cruelty provisions that are included in the part of the Criminal Code that governs animal well-being, acknowledging that they can feel pain.

Interestingly, data from new scientific studies show that animals can feel pain. An interesting aspect of the bill introduced by my New Democratic colleague from Parkdale—High Park is that these changes will better protect strays and wild animals. We know that existing laws do not protect them well enough.

Before question period starts, I would like to comment briefly on Bill C-592, which was introduced by my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and is also designed to protect animals from cruelty.

For those following today's debate, it would be interesting to get more information on these bills and support the work of these members so that these bills can move forward and provide better protection for animals in Canada.

I know that I will have a little more time after question period to make my case, but I would like to talk about mandatory minimum sentences because this is not the only Conservative bill that includes a mandatory minimum sentence. According to the Canadian Bar Association, there are now at least 57 offences with mandatory minimum sentences, while in 2005, there were only 29. We are very concerned about that.

I look forward to continuing my remarks after question period.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to rise in the House to speak to a bill. Before I begin, however, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the events that transpired here last week, because I thought about them a lot over the weekend. Most of all, I thought about the tragedy, the death of Corporal Cirillo, and the impact it has had on his family and his son. I would simply like to add that my thoughts and prayers are with his family, and I extend my condolences to them.

I attended various events in my riding this past weekend, and it is always a pleasure to do so. Many people came to see me in Wakefield to say they stand in solidarity with me, our team, our leader and all members of this House after the tragic events of last week. I thank them for offering their sympathy, for supporting me and for expressing how much hope they have in our work here.

That said, once again we have another bill that blurs the lines between the government, politics and the legislature.

This is an issue that the government has brought several times to the House in legislation. Time and time again, we are the only party that seems to stand up for this basic principle that it is judges who are best placed to decide what a sentence should be.

During a trial, what goes on is questioning. It is almost like a form of investigation. Through this process, in what I would call a dialectical process of exchange, facts come up and it is discovered that things are not as simple as they appeared before. The situation appears different under questioning, and there needs to be a process in place so that those things that are revealed during a trial are taken into consideration in sentencing.

This is a principle that is fundamental. It is also a principle of how democracy should work, which is that there should be a very long arm between the legislators and the government in place on the one hand and what happens on judges' benches on the other.

Bill C-35 was announced in the 2013 throne speech, so it is not very surprising that we have it before us today. The bill proposes Criminal Code amendments that would create a new offence specifically prohibiting the killing, injuring, poisoning or maiming of trained animals being used to help law enforcement officers, persons with disabilities or the Canadian Armed Forces.

I have to say that I have no problem with the principle of protecting animals that do this kind of work. On the contrary, I really like animals. I have had animals around me ever since I was a young boy. I learned to respect them and to see them as our companions on the beautiful planet we share with them.

It is commendable to have legislation to protect them further. However, I see that the government is being contradictory. Not so long ago, we introduced bills to do exactly this: improve legislation on protecting abused animals. I do not know why, perhaps it is simply because it was not the government's idea, but the Conservatives voted against our bills. How can they vote against this principle and then turn around and propose the same principle? On this side of the House, when we see such inconsistency, it makes us wonder. What is behind this? What are they trying to get passed that might not have anything to do with the well-being of animals?

This bill is meant to improve legislation. For example, persons convicted of such an offence could face up to five years in prison, with—and I want to emphasize this—a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison in cases where a law enforcement animal is killed while assisting a law enforcement officer in enforcing the law and the offence is prosecuted by indictment. If a law enforcement animal is injured or killed while on duty, the sentence for that offence would be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender arising out of the same event.

This is definitely a case of interfering with judicial independence. Judges make decisions that they consider to be appropriate. After all, judges are not appointed just for the fun of it. It is clear that we must respect their work and their experience.

Therefore, it is a bit odd that the provisions of Bill C-35 do not change the sentences and fines set out in section 445 of the Criminal Code for all animals that are not cattle. The Edmonton police department seems to be supporting the bill, and it seems reasonable to believe that the other police forces, as well as individuals with service animals, will want to support this bill. That is true.

However, the fact remains that there are two very serious problems with this bill. As I mentioned earlier, it introduces a six-month minimum sentence and consecutive sentences if a law enforcement animal is killed when a crime is committed.

Consequently, it would be good to hear in committee what the experts and other civil society organizations have to say about these two issues. However, the government must listen to them. If we go to committee, which we would like to do, consultations must be robust and rigorous and expert opinions must be considered. There is a problem, though.

Time and time again, what we have seen is that when we support a bill going to committee, either the committee process is shortened or we do not have access to all of the experts or to a healthy debate. Additionally, when we propose amendments that would help the piece of legislation to be enacted and to be balanced, every single amendment from the opposition is opposed. That does not seem to be particularly reasonable when, after hearing from all of these experts, it is clear that the proposed legislation could be improved.

In closing, I have a few fundamental questions for the Conservatives.

For example, why does the government want to once again remove discretionary authority from the courts? That is a basic question but the government still has not answered it. Also, why does this government always try to amend good bills by inserting unreasonable clauses, such as consecutive sentences? Have the Conservatives assessed the impact that including a minimum sentence and consecutive sentences will have on the justice and prison systems? Once again, we have not received any answers in this regard. Finally, why do the Conservatives think it is necessary to include a minimum sentence in this bill?

These are reasonable questions. The problem is that we are the only ones talking about this bill. We are the only ones asking questions about this bill. Nevertheless, we are here to do that. How can we get the answers we need to really know whether the government is serious about wanting a common sense bill?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, one we will probably ask of those who testify before the committee.

I am sticking my neck out a bit, but I will keep an open mind and maybe someone can convince me otherwise. What I am prepared to say is that when I look at the jurisprudence for similar crimes or cases like this, I rarely see sentences that are shorter than the minimum set out in Bill C-35.

The same thing happened with another bill, which was also a private member's bill, about child abduction. I asked a victim who testified before the committee if the fact that the Conservative government's minimum was lower than what the jurisprudence showed for such cases was problematic. In other words, the government wanted the minimum sentence to be four years, but the courts were already handing down sentences of eight, 10 or even 14 years in such cases.

Legislators do not talk for the sake of talking. It is a basic argument used in court. I can easily picture a defence lawyer saying that the judge is being too harsh and that is why the government legislated a lower minimum. The victim found that very unsettling and definitely did not want to see that happen.

It can be good to leave such things to the court's discretion because it knows and applies the principles of Criminal Code sections 716 and on. In many cases, it comes down to information. Members of the public might not like it, but if they had all of the facts of the case, including the aggravating and mitigating factors, they would understand why a particular sentence is given. Of course there can be mistakes, but that, as some judges will tell you, is what appeals are for.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will follow in my colleagues' footsteps because we have just gone through some unusual events on Parliament Hill, events that affect not only politicians but all Canadians.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those whose priority is our safety and that of our assistants and the people who work in this magnificent parliamentary precinct, which includes the Centre Block and the Confederation Building, where my offices are located. These have been difficult times.

The labour relations lawyer in me feels compelled to ask everyone to take good care of themselves. People who experience a traumatic event can experience different after-effects, and of course my thoughts are with our Sergeant-at-Arms. I hope that he is taking care of himself and that others are taking care of him too. Everyone has gone through a very trying time.

That said, this is an interesting time to rise in the House to discuss Bill C-35 as the official opposition's justice critic.

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île, who took care of this file so that I could carry out a thorough review of other bills. She has done an extraordinary job of helping our caucus colleagues understand the issues with this bill.

I listened to my colleagues earlier, particularly my colleague from Parkdale—High Park, who is an animal lover, and, I would think, not the only one in this House.

It is ironic that I have to rise in this House to speak to this bill, because those who know me will know, on the one hand, just how much I love animals, and on the other hand, how I would not want anyone at all to be hurt in any way.

These harmless, defenceless creatures deserve the same protection that we afford to children and people with mental or physical disabilities. We have to make sure we protect those most vulnerable in our society and those who cannot protect themselves.

It is ironic, because this bill has come about in much the same way as many Conservative bills seem to come about, namely, as a reaction to specific situations, which always raises many questions in my mind.

When I was a law student at the University of Ottawa a few decades ago, I had an affinity for criminal law. I found it extremely interesting, as most law students do when they enter the faculty of law. They often think they will become the greatest criminal lawyers the world has ever known.

I became a labour lawyer, which shows that what may seem extraordinarily exciting when we are at school is in fact different in reality. Criminal law is not an easy domain and I commend all crown prosecutors, police officers, defence lawyers, probation officers and judges who work in this area and who are called to determine the right thing to do in each case.

I realize that the crime rate is going down and that the nature of crimes is changing. We can always get statistics to say what we want them to say. On our side, we might say that we do not need to be too harsh or build prisons since the crime rate is going down. However, our Conservative friends, who do not seem to have anything to say today, will probably say that the crime rate is going down because they are extremely tough. Again, we can get statistics to say what we want.

However, when I was studying law, the basic principles of sentencing stuck with me. In that regard, I am deeply concerned about all these bills. It is not my socialist heart that is bleeding, but that of a person to whom it is important that the Criminal Code, the country's law governing acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, explain the decisions taken by our society on punishing these acts—criminal acts in this case.

We have always been told by our criminal law and sentencing experts that there are basic principles that we cannot circumvent.

I am not going to lecture you because that is not my style. However, we sometimes forget. When we forget, we have a tendency of repeating past mistakes or making other mistakes that could be avoided if we were to examine the simple facts. There are parts of the Criminal Code that we do not often hear about in the House. I am thinking of the entire part that starts with section 716, for example. It covers sentencing and explains the basic principles that apply to sentencing.

In the short time available to me, I would like to highlight a few of the very fundamental sections that a court must consider when it is preparing either to hand down a sentence or to make a decision about an accused. I would point out that one of the very few changes being made to section 718 is the addition of aggravating factors to the section on sentencing.

718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

This principle is often forgotten by our friends opposite.

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community.

With respect to this last point, all types of restorative justice come into play.

Section 718.01 concerns crimes against youth under the age of eighteen years.

Section 718.1 is extremely important. This section is often the kicker. It is at the heart of our beliefs as the official opposition in this House. Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code states:

718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Notice that it says “the offender” and not “the offenders”. That is where jurisprudence comes in, with respect to the principle that each case is unique.

Section 718.2 states:

718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing...

What follows is a list that has grown over the years under the Conservatives and in response to some realities in society. The section continues:

(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

Once again, there is the principle that every case is unique. Proportionality must be taken into account. Criminal justice must be applied in the same way for each person who commits the same crime, under the same circumstances. During sentencing arguments, the parties will point out aggravating factors or factors in favour of the accused. The section continues:

(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

My colleagues have already said this so I will not repeat. Second reading should not be used to repeat the same principle, but to make specific points. This stage is extremely important. As I was telling one of my colleagues earlier, as justice critic, and since we support this bill, I will have the benefit of having heard my colleagues' thoughts when we examine the bill in committee with experts and witnesses. I would have liked to have heard more from the other side, since everyone is capable of presenting persuasive arguments now and then. However, you cannot win anyone over with silence.

The Criminal Code states:

(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances;

We know this. There is an enormous amount of literature and many analyses have been conducted on the usefulness of minimum sentences and the legality of consecutive sentences.

Furthermore, some decisions in similar cases have gone as far as the Supreme Court. I urge my colleagues to be cautious—and that is what we will do in committee—and to ensure that this bill complies with all of the relevant principles of law.

I would also suggest that all members of the House read section 716 and subsequent sections of the Criminal Code on sentencing. They will see that our Criminal Code already has a strong foundation of principles that apply.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remember a few years ago, in Toronto, when Brigadier, a beautiful Belgian cross horse, was struck and killed by someone fleeing in a getaway car. It shocked and outraged the entire community.

My community of Toronto was shocked and horrified just a couple of weeks ago when animal services announced that a black Lab puppy was in their care. It was the most severely abused animal they had ever seen. It had acid burns, broken bones and internal injuries. Clearly all protections for animals, especially service and companion animals, need to be improved, as the member for London—Fanshawe said. I put forward Bill C-232 to improve our animal cruelty laws, and we have not found support on the other side of the House.

Why does the member think that the government side would not support general laws to improve the welfare of animals and to improve the struggle against animal cruelty, but that it would overreact and in fact undermine the situation with some of the provisions in Bill C-35?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the member opposite for bringing forward a bill that takes into account a need to respond to the killing or injuring of a service animal.

As a compassionate community, we are well aware of the many times that animals have come to the assistance of people and have served as law enforcement animals, military service animals, or service animals that support persons with disabilities. The stories are many and legendary.

One example is that during Hurricane Katrina, a 19-year-old dog saved his 80-year-old owner from drowning. A 19-year-old dog is perhaps even older in years than some of us here in the House. This particular situation was very poignant inasmuch as the elderly gentleman, George Mitchell, said that he would have given up his struggle against the surging waters of Katrina had it not been for the actions of his long-time pet, his long-time friend. Clearly there is a sentient reality to animals, and we have to be very cognizant of that.

There is also the example of Yoshi, a police service dog in Waterloo region. Yoshi had served the community since his deployment in 2009 and was known as a top cop. He was highly skilled in capturing suspects, finding narcotics, and finding missing persons. This last skill of finding missing persons touches us closely. We think of elderly people who have gone missing and children who are lost. Service dogs are incredibly important and instrumental in addressing those kinds of situations.

Bill C-35 is called “Quanto's law” in remembrance of Quanto, the police service dog killed in Edmonton trying to stop a fleeing suspect. The assailant was charged with animal cruelty and sentenced to 26 months in prison. The decision in this case was made at the discretion of a judge and was based on years of jurisprudence, existing law, and the evidence presented in court. That is how it should be. A sentence should be determined in a court of law by an experienced judge in an effort to ensure the sentence fairly reflects the crime. That is at the centre of our concerns about Bill C-35.

Bill C-35 is laudable in its sentiment, and we should indeed be concerned about animal cruelty. Section 445 of the Criminal Code sets out penalties and fines for those guilty of injuring all animals other than cattle.

I want to be very clear: New Democrats condemn all forms of animal cruelty, a position that we have supported for a long time. We have expressed those concerns over the past number of years regarding this Parliament's inability to truly protect animals. Members may recall some of these situations, because at present, animal cruelty crimes are considered property offences. It is not an offence to train animals to fight other animals or to receive money from the fighting of animals. There is no specific offence for particularly violent or brutal crimes against animals, and no additional protection is afforded to law enforcement animals.

Bill C-35 seeks to change that by bringing forward specific and additional protection for law enforcement and service animals. However, we have to look carefully at what is proposed in this legislation.

Bill C-35 would create a new offence, as I said, for killing or injuring a service animal, a law enforcement animal, or a military animal while the animal is on duty. It proposes a minimum sentence of six months if a law enforcement animal is killed by an individual while that individual is perpetrating an offence. It proposes that sentences imposed on a person be served consecutive to any other punishment imposed on that person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

Like all Conservative legislation, the devil is in the details. This is a laudable bill but it has been tainted and undermined by introducing minimum sentencing, which clearly reflects what we can only call a repressive agenda. It does not take into account that we have courts and jurisprudence with respect to those courts and sentencing. We once again see a government showing its desire to deprive those courts of their discretion in sentencing, which is a very important part of a workable and intelligent justice system.

I am certain that every member of the House knows that there are circumstances. There is nothing that is absolute. There is no situation that can be absolutely deemed like any other. We have many examples of that in the courts. We simply cannot forget that and set it aside.

The Conservatives should also be aware of the consequences of minimum and consecutive sentencing on the criminal justice system. In this case, we have to hear from the experts about the consequences of minimum and consecutive sentencing. That is why we are recommending that the bill be studied carefully in committee. We need to hear from experts on what the consequences of this particular legislation could be and would be. We have to pay attention to those experts and to warnings from the courts.

I am sure members are well aware that in January of this year a B.C. judge challenged Ottawa's tough on crime legislation and found that mandatory minimum sentences violated the charter rights of those being condemned. I am concerned that Bill C-35 would also face such challenges. The Supreme Court is looking at a specific B.C. case regarding a criminal who was convicted of drug trafficking. In that case, Judge Galati said that in that situation a one-year minimum sentence would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited under section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At the time, Judge Galati declared the law in question to be of no force and effect in B.C. That is why it is now being heard by the Supreme Court. It is important that we wait for the decision and rely on the wisdom of that court before we go ahead with any other legislation that could be challenged under the charter.

The lawyer in that case said that mandatory minimum sentences are problematic because they remove the discretion of judges. He said that the federal government's enactment of mandatory minimum sentences was more political than reasonable. This notion that being tough on crime would somehow make us safer is a misconception. We are no safer now than we were 10 years ago. That is a simple fact.

Other jurisdictions have eliminated or have begun to reduce mandatory minimums, most notably the United States. They are moving away from those practices because they are found to be ineffective. Most Commonwealth countries with mandatory minimums have an escape clause so that judges can bypass the minimums when they deem it necessary. Therefore, we are going in the opposite direction of much of the rest of the world at a time when our crime rate is historically low.

Finally, I would like to say that New Democrats, of course, condemn all forms of animal cruelty. We have held that position for a very long time and have supported legislation such as Bill C-232 and Bill C-592.

We do believe that this particular bill is undermining what is otherwise a laudable idea. We have to be very careful of that. We have to be very cognizant of that.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for your indulgence and that of my colleagues as well. I know that our remarks must be relevant to the matter at hand; however, this is the first time I have risen to speak since the tragic events of last Wednesday. First and foremost, I simply want to thank the Sergeant-at-Arms and his team who, when it comes right down to it, saved our lives. I do not want to exaggerate, but that really is the case. I also want to thank everyone in my riding, Chambly—Borduas. We have received many emails over the past few days in a show of solidarity. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how proud I am, even more so than last week, to be able to represent my constituents in the House and speak on their behalf. I have found a positive side to this very difficult tragedy. I have come to realize how much of a privilege it is to be here for them and to continue this work.

Having said that, I will move on to today's debate on Bill C-35, which is known as Quanto's law because it is named after a police dog in Edmonton that was killed while a crime was in progress. As many of my colleagues have said, we support this bill because, really, who would not?

According to my latest information, Canada's Criminal Code is not quite up to date on animal cruelty compared to other countries like ours around the world. We have a lot of catching up to do. I know that over the past few years many of my NDP colleagues have introduced bills about this issue.

That is why, obviously, we support the bill. As I just said, who would not? However, we do have some major concerns, and unfortunately, they often come up whenever we are dealing with bills that would change the Criminal Code. The two issues we are concerned about are minimum sentences and consecutive sentences.

We just heard an excellent speech from my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan, and several other colleagues of mine, regarding minimum sentences. It is important to note once again that we are seeing this pattern more and more from this Conservative government. According to published articles on crime and the justice system, it is becoming increasingly clear that minimum sentencing is not producing the desired results. It is doing nothing to improve prevention, even though, at the end of the day, our main objective should be to ensure that future crimes are prevented.

If we take a closer look at minimum sentences, we find all kinds of other problems. One problem is quite common. In many of the government's proposals, the minimum sentences are sometimes lighter than what judges have imposed in some cases. We have a situation where the justice system has proven that imposing minimum sentences was unnecessary. This measure appears to be more politically motivated, to show that the government is trying to be “tough on crime”, as we often hear, but in fact, the justice system is already doing its job. Minimum sentences are being imposed in some situations where the justice system was already doing a good job and where the sentences imposed were sufficient.

Some discretion is being removed from the justice system. We could examine our system in Canada, or even comparable systems, such as those of the United States or England, and have a debate on the unique aspects of each system. Nonetheless, one aspect is comparable and that is the division of powers. Obviously, Parliament has a responsibility to enact laws, but the justice system has the responsibility to ensure their enforcement and their interpretation. Just because we are disappointed in how a law is interpreted, that does not always mean that it is Parliament's responsibility to change the law immediately.

The government wants to change legislation every time it disagrees with what the justice system is doing. We must ensure the independence and discretion of the justice system and not legislate on a case-by-base basis, because that is a very slippery slope. Unfortunately, this government does that far too often, especially when it comes to minimum sentences. It is a worrisome trend.

In some cases, we support these bills, because, contrary to what my colleague heckled earlier, we cannot be against what is right. For example, when it comes to victims' rights or animal cruelty, including cruelty against police service dogs in a criminal context, we cannot be opposed.

However, when this type of situation occurs, the Conservatives too often move time allocation or closure motions. A government minister asked us why we did not stop debating and immediately send the bill to committee if we were in favour of it.

The reason is quite simple. First, committee is not the place to debate with our colleagues opposite. There are sometimes debates with witnesses, since we do not necessarily agree with them. However, the primary purpose of committee is to learn from the expertise of witnesses so that we can better understand our own concerns. We are not all lawyers, and if we do not have the expertise to explain the subject matter in simple terms, we cannot make informed decisions and amend a bill if necessary.

Committee is therefore not the place to address our colleagues. Furthermore, as in the House, it is not allowed. However, in the House, we have the opportunity to hear Conservative members and members of other parties speak, to ask them questions and to hear their answers.

Unfortunately, the government is preventing us from voicing our opinions on a bill because it does not believe that we should speak about it if everyone supports it. Although we support the bill, we still have concerns about justice and crime issues, particularly with regard to minimum sentences, which are at the heart of this matter.

When we have the opportunity to ask our Conservative colleagues questions—and that is not the case—the time for debate is limited. Although we recognize how important and urgent the issue is in some cases, rather than just rushing the bill to committee, it is important that we all have the opportunity to speak, ask our questions and present our arguments. Committee is not the place for 308 members to discuss a bill.

That is why we have debates, and government members must stop downplaying their importance. It does not do justice to Parliament or the legislative process. It results in mistakes, for example bills that are thought to be unconstitutional or must be fixed in committee. If more fulsome debate were allowed, we could advance these arguments and avoid these problems.

In closing, I would like to say once again that my colleagues and I support this bill. I am saying so for the third time. Who would not?

However, as several of my colleagues also mentioned, these details matter to us. We have concerns about minimum sentences and consecutive sentences, which take away discretion or judicial authority. As legislators, we are beginning to take over the work of judges. That is not how the system is supposed to work. Although animal cruelty is terrible and we are pleased to see the government bring in legislation, we must nevertheless pay attention to the separation of powers.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Newton—North Delta for her very kind comments. She has also done yeoman's work in the House, particularly with regard to issues recently around child care. I want to acknowledge the good work she has done. As well, the member clearly indicated that the New Democrats would be supporting Bill C-35. It was interesting to hear questions from the other side.

We talk about this place being a democratic institution. Part of being a democratic institution is ensuring that my constituents are represented in the House. That means as members of Parliament we should have an opportunity to rise in the House to speak to particular legislation. The members ask why do we not just get it to committee. I do not happen to sit on the justice committee, so I would be unable to participate in the questioning of witnesses and in any debate at the committee with regard to the legislation. Therefore, it is important that I am able to rise in the House to express what I think are concerns for my riding and to have that voice on the record.

Again, we support the bill and as the member for Newton—North Delta rightly pointed out, we do have concerns. However, let me talk about what the substance of the bill is.

According to the legislative summary, Bill C-35, an act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals), is as follows. It is also called Quanto's law in honour of the police dog which was stabbed to death while helping to apprehend a fleeing suspect in Edmonton, Alberta in October 2013. Quanto had four years of decorated service and had participated in more than 100 arrests. The legislative summary says:

Currently, an offence is committed under sections 444 and 445 of the Criminal Code (Code) when someone wilfully kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures cattle or when someone kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures a pet wilfully and without lawful excuse.

There are also a number of provisions that address cruelty to animals, including section 445.1 of the Code, which establishes that it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal.

The legislative summary goes on to talk on to talk about what the new offences are and it indicates:

Clause 3 creates new subsection 445.01 (1) of the Code,3 which establishes that it is an offence to wilfully and without lawful excuse kill , maim, wound, poison or injure 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 while it is assisting a person with a disability.

It goes on to say that, “A minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months takes effect only if a law enforcement animal is killed”.

Subsequently it refers to the consecutive sentences clause 2:

Clause 2 of Bill C-35 creates new section 270.03 of the Code, which establishes that, if the abovementioned offences are committed against a law enforcement officer...the sentence imposed shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

We certainly support an initiative that protects service animals. We know they play a very important role in aiding police officers, border security in airports where the service animals are being used for drug detection. We support legislation that enhances the protection for these animals, but as other members have rightly pointed out, there are some serious concerns with regard to the continuing use of mandatory minimum sentences and the consecutive sentencing clause within the legislation.

I want to turn for a moment to the mandatory minimum sentences. There have been a number of scholarly articles written over the last several years with regard to the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences in the United States. I want to quote an article that was published February 10, 2014, by the Heritage Foundation. The articles says, “Reconsidering Mandatory Minimum Sentences”. In the abstract, it indicates:

Mandatory minimum sentences are the product of good intentions, but good intentions do not always make good policy; good results are also necessary.

With respect to each crime, is justice best served by having legislatures assign fixed penalties to that crime? Or should legislatures leave judges more or less free to tailor sentences to the aggravating and mitigating facts of each criminal case within a defined range?

There were numerous arguments with this article, both for and against. As members can probably tell, I am not in favour of mandatory minimum sentences, so I will quote from the parts that support my argument.

I do not have time, unfortunately, to go through some of the cases, but in the conclusion, it says:

Congress was right to be concerned about reducing sentencing disparity and ensuring that sentences are neither unduly lenient nor unduly harsh. Nonetheless, just as law should be tempered with equity, so should rigid sentencing rules leave room for adjustment in certain cases where a legislatively fixed sentence would be manifestly unjust. No statute can account for every variable in every case, and the attempt to do so with mandatory minimums has given rise to punishments in some small-scale drug possession cases that are completely out of whack with the purpose of the federal sentencing laws.

Again, I want to stay with cases in the United States. Over a number of years it has had its “three strikes and you're out” laws and some other mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have now proven to be not that effective.

There was an article on February 22, entitled “Texas an unlikely model for prison reform”. It is a California senator who quoted this, but the article states:

For over 30 years, spending on our prison system has steadily climbed from 3 percent of the state's operating budget to 11 percent. Even during the depth of the Great Recession, spending on prisons and jails increased while spending on education and health care was slashed. It continues to increase today. It doesn't have to be that way. There are alternatives, and unlikely as it might seem, Texas seems to be leading the way...

Among the members of his board of directors are national conservative leaders Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich.

That is to highlight the fact that it not just the New Democrats or Democrats or Liberals who are indicating that there should be a review of the mandatory minimum sentencing; it is also conservatives in the United States.

The article continues:

How is this happening? Texas is investing in alternatives to incarceration that are proving to be cheaper and more effective at keeping people out of prison. It is also doing a better job of rehabilitating people to keep them from reoffending and...back in prison.

Texas uses risk-assessment and better probation procedures to divert large numbers of nonviolent offenders away from the prison system, keeping them away from hard-core criminals. It requires strict implementation of victim-restitution measures, while offering alternatives to prison such as civil sanctions, drug courts and drug-abuse and mental health treatment. It also offers rehabilitation programs like job training for those in prison to prepare them to re-enter society. And Texas has invested heavily in reducing the caseloads of parole and probation officers so the state can keep better track of the people it supervises and help them move in a new direction.

Texas, which I think most people would agree has had a fairly strong approach to the criminal justice system, is implementing measures that do not rely on mandatory minimums and other such measures. It is actually looking at rehabilitation.

When we talk about prison reform, I want to reference Howard Sapers, the ombudsperson for prisons. For years, he has been raising the issues around how people are treated once they are in the prison system and how many of the things that happen do not contribute to keeping people out of jail once they are released. Many other voices out there are speaking up.

However, the last point I want to touch on is the failure of the current Conservative government to adequately address prevention measures, because the best measure in the justice system is to stop people from going to jail in the first place.

The Institute for the Prevention of Crime at the University of Ottawa has a number of resources, but it also has an article titled, “Building a safer Canada: effective planning for crime prevention”. In the introduction to this, it states:

Safety is a vital component of our quality of life. Our police and criminal justice systems play an essential role in helping to achieve these goals, and we should continue to do everything we can to help make them more responsive, efficient and effective.

However, there are no easy solutions to the problems of crime and victimization, and little evidence that simply relying on more enforcement and more punishment will significantly increase our individual and collective safety...

There is also a convincing body of evidence that prevention is an effective way to move forward. The concern is that Canada is not doing enough to make the best use of this knowledge and expertise—we need a sustained commitment to doing more to translate proven approaches into common practice.

Because my time is almost up, I do not have time to go through the whole article, but it has a framework for prevention planning. It says that there are five interconnected questions. One is understanding the problem and developing a vision, an action plan, and responsibility centres. Second is concentrating resources. Third is relying on evidence-based approaches. Fourth is assuming adequate and sustained support, and fifth is informing and engaging the public.

In conclusion, New Democrats support Bill C-35, but we look forward to a full review at committee.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-35, also known as Quanto's law. It would amend the Criminal Code regarding law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals. I support the bill at second reading, though I hope that some work will be done to it in committee.

First of all, it would be remiss of me if I did not acknowledge what happened last Wednesday and what it felt like to be back in my riding over the weekend. I can tell members that wherever I went in my riding, people were deeply concerned. They were very thankful for our safety, but they were also very sad about Corporal Nathan Cirillo.

For many of them, to see their MP back in their riding and back doing the work of Parliament gave them a certain amount of reassurance. I remember talking to some constituents about other MPs as well. Many of the constituents expressed that it was good that we were not going to let what happened last Wednesday make us take drastic steps. We should let the authorities do their work and the investigation, and we need a very measured response to what happened.

Absolutely, we need to review things, but right now, we are thinking of Corporal Cirillo. We are also thinking of his six-year-old son, his family and his friends.

I also want to acknowledge our heartfelt gratitude to all of the men and women in uniform in our building here, and those who came in, who risked their lives. They put themselves in harm's way in order to ensure the safety not only of the MPs but of the young children visiting and the other members of the public and the staff on the Hill as well.

It is these kinds of tragedies that remind us that Canada is a multicultural nation. It is a nation that loves. For me, I was so touched this weekend, because for so many people, that is what it was about. Let us not look at our neighbours with different sets of eyes. Let us just hold hands and get through this together. I felt that over and over again.

Many of the religious places helped, whether they were a masjid, or mosque as many of us would say, a gurdwara, a mandir, or a church. Many held prayers over the weekend. Once again, they were prayers of gratitude and prayers acknowledging what has happened. People were praying that we continue to be the peaceful nation that we are, that we continue to love as we have always done, and that we continue to be inclusive.

It would have felt strange if I had not said a few of those things today in light of what happened last week, but as we are here to do the business of the people and debate the bill, I will get back to talking about this particular piece of legislation.

As we all know, this legislation is now being labelled as “Quanto's law”, which is in memory of the Edmonton Police Service dog that was stabbed to death while trying to stop a fleeing suspect in October 2013. Paul Joseph Vukmanich pleaded guilty to animal cruelty and other offences, including evading the police. He was sentenced to 26 months in prison and banned from owning a pet for 25 years.

We all know the important role that enforcement animals, military animals and service animals play, and we are all very concerned when any harm is done to them deliberately. It is because of this that the bill is here.

Having come from a family that has had dogs for many years, since the kids were little, it is very hard for me, and I think for many of us in this room, to imagine how someone could attack a dog or any other service animal. However, it does happen. When I was telling my grandchildren that we would be debating the bill, my granddaughter's reaction was, “Why is it only for law enforcement animals?”, so I explained the background of the bill to her. Of course, she still cries about Buddy, who passed away a while ago, every time she looks at her photos. Our pets are very close to us.

However, we have some concerns with Bill C-35, even though we are supporting sending it to committee. Once again, our concerns point to something we have seen all too often. When we see a piece of legislation come forward, it does not matter what it purports to do, because when one looks at the details, there is always a little twist in there that makes it more difficult for us to see what it would entail. However, there are two areas of the bill that cause us major concern, and it will not be news to anybody, because I have expressed concern about minimum and consecutive sentences before. The introduction of minimum and consecutive sentences causes us great concern, and we will bring amendments at the committee stage.

I am hoping, unlike in the past, that we will see a certain level of co-operation from the government side so that we can address the legislation in the way that parliamentarians are supposed to in a democracy. The opposition at committee stage and in the House plays a critical role in pointing out flaws in a bill, and a good government, one that believes in democracy and the parliamentary process, would heed some of that input, accept amendments and then have a robust debate.

What would Bill C-35 do?

Concretely, the bill would amend section 445 of the Criminal Code. It would create a new offence for killing or injuring a service animal, law enforcement animal or military animal while the animal is on duty. It would set a minimum sentence of six months if a law enforcement animal is killed while an offence is being perpetrated, and it would provide for the sentence imposed on a person to be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

Members can see the difficulties we have with the bill, which are points two and three that I just made. As in much of the legislation that has come from across the way, including omnibus legislation, which is usually thicker than the phone books in most municipalities in the country, the devil is always in the details.

I have to express my deep concern that here we have a laudable bill that could have gone through with much speed, although the government across the way has other ways to achieve that speed. However, the bill could have gone through, but it has been tainted by the introduction of minimum sentencing, which clearly reflects the repressive agenda that the government is bringing forward. Once again, it would tie the hands of our judiciary, and once again it would have the legislative branch hampering the work and independence of the judiciary.

Even before the judge in question or a jury hear the case, the sentence has been predetermined, and that is disconcerting. The sentence may have happened anyway, or it might have even been a longer sentence, but once again it takes away the judiciary's discretion.

I want my colleagues across the way to think seriously about the consequences of minimum and consecutive sentencing on the criminal justice system. If crime could be solved just by putting people in prison, then the U.S. would have no crime today. Many states spend more on prisons than on many of their other programs. If just putting somebody in prison could solve the issue, then the U.S. would be crime free.

We hear about overcrowding in our prisons. We have heard testimony to that end with regard to another bill. That creates a concern as well.

My major concern is that we would be tying the hands of the judiciary. We would be taking away the jobs of those who are appointed to make judgments.

Hope springs eternal, in me at least, and I am sure in many of us. I am still hopeful that the government will not use many of the tools that it has used before to silence debate in the House.

Legislation has been sent to committees where no witnesses have been heard, and I am talking about a major piece of legislation that would have redefined citizenship. The government's majority on the committee used bullying tactics and time allocation to make sure the legislation was pushed through without hearing from any expert witnesses. A closure motion was brought forward only last week. My colleagues across the way seem to feel that time allocation is the way that they have to do business. I find that disconcerting.

I am hopeful that when we look at legislation now, especially after last week, that we realize we are here to represent our constituents. When we debate bills here, all of us, no matter whether we are independents, Conservative, NDP, or Liberal, have a contribution to make. Every one of us is here to represent our constituents. Every one of us wants legislation passed through the House that has had due diligence, proper oversight, and that will not be open to all kinds of other challenges.

I grew up with in England with a saying that sometimes people can be “penny wise and pound foolish”. I think of that saying often, as we rush through legislation that ends up being challenged in the courts and costing Canadian taxpayers a huge amount of money. I think of that when laws are passed that make no sense and take away people's rights.

My colleagues and I support this legislation at second reading, but we do have major concerns. We want to hear from witnesses and we want to express those concerns. We will definitely be bringing forward amendments.

I would love to have a bill go through all stages in a respectful manner, and being respectful does not mean just sitting here; it means listening and responding to the issues that are raised.

There is already legislation in place and fines set out, in section 445 of the Criminal Code, for all animals other than cattle. That is already there. Therefore, we can reassure our families and friends who have cats, dogs, or other pets, that there is already legislation in place. This is an amendment to that legislation, which specifically targets service, enforcement, and military animals. It is there for a reason. We have legislation when a crime is committed against RCMP officers or the military while they are on duty, and this is to parallel that.

It is no surprise that there are forces and police departments across this country who may be supporting this bill. I know that the Edmonton Police Service does support the bill, and it is fair to assume that there are others who support it too. I support this bill because it is good to have legislation that is very explicit. However, as I said earlier, I do have some concerns.

I would like to quote Staff Sergeant Trevor Hermanutz of the Edmonton Police Service canine unit, who said that officers are pleased with the law. He stated:

We know that now we have a law that is going to put some teeth to the matter—the fact that when people want to injure or kill law enforcement animals, there are some serious legal consequences to their actions....

I would advise members, and the numbers may have changed since I read this document, that the RCMP currently has 157 police dogs in service across Canada. The Canada Border Services Agency has 53 dog and handler teams. We are not talking about thousands of animals, but there is definitely a number that is over 200.

There is not a person in this House, it does not matter which side, who in any way condones animal cruelty. I can say on behalf of my colleagues that we condemn all forms of animal cruelty. That is a position we have supported for a long time. It is reflected in Bill C-232 and Bill C-592. At the same time that we condemn that cruelty, we are also very cautious. We have been bitten one too many times, I suppose. The Conservatives, my colleagues across the way, always manage to put some zingers in the bills that they introduce. Sometimes I wonder if those zingers are to see whether we would oppose the bill. However, this time I am seriously hoping that they will look at our concerns at committee stage and assist us in adding some amendments.

I want to say again that we support this bill. However, there are two things that we do have serious concerns with and which I will reiterate; they are the minimum sentences and the consecutive sentences. We are looking forward to hearing expert witnesses, but not one or two witnesses being given to the opposition and then the government saying it is done. We want a robust debate. This is an opportunity for us to discuss minimum sentencing, its impact on the system, and how it impacts the role of the judiciary.

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from October 23 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.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to speak in support of Bill C-35, which we are debating today.

I want to express my gratitude to the guards, the first responders, who basically saved our lives yesterday. They went through a lot yesterday and we cannot thank them enough. Let me be frank. On a daily basis in this place and in this precinct, we take them for granted. Our hearts are with them not only because of what they did for us yesterday but for what they do for us on a daily basis.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the RCMP and to the Ottawa police force. What happened yesterday is fresh in our memory. As this is my first opportunity to rise in the House since the horrific events of yesterday, I want to take this opportunity to thank them. I am grateful for their help. They did their job. If they had not done their job, we might not be in this place today. We should never take that for granted.

I want to thank all of them for not only what they have done for us in the past but particularly for what they did yesterday and will continue to do in the future.

We understand the context of Bill C-35. This legislation is in memory of an Edmonton police service dog named Quanto. I recall many times in this place bills that have been attributed to events or to individuals, but this legislation is quite unique. People who are not aware of the context of this legislation would not really appreciate the fact that we are talking about protecting animals and the importance of what they do.

Some people may be scratching their heads because we are having a debate about dogs in the Parliament of Canada. It would appear to be strange.

However, the context of this legislation is important because of the horrific violence that took place involving this police service dog. It ups our game in looking at protecting those who serve and those who are first responders. That is a good thing and something we should celebrate. Again, I think of the events of yesterday. Now more than ever we can appreciate every device used to protect people.

This legislation is inspired by the case of the Edmonton police service dog named Quanto. It was a horrific event. The dog was stabbed to death during its pursuit of a fleeing suspect. The case really grabbed people's attention in October 2013 and pushed people to act. The Deputy Speaker and one of my colleagues had a private member's bill on this same issue.

We must look at the whole context of first responders. We must look not only at service dogs and what they do in the case of police services but also rescue dogs and what they do to help people who are stranded. Many of my colleagues have given us their stories. This past Fall there were a couple of stories involving kids who had walked away from their homes. Rescue dogs found those kids and they were returned to their homes safely. I was inspired by those stories.

It is important that we look at the whole issue of first responders and that is what this legislation does. Obviously, first responders are supported by technology, but they are also supported with backup, like logistics and communications. We saw that yesterday.

However, to have dogs that are highly trained and supportive gives first responders confidence that they will be supported.

If people do not understand the kind of work our police services and our military do, they might not appreciate the importance of service animals. Service animals have a very long tradition, a history that is not particularly new. What is new is that we are recognizing that their importance merits putting amendments into the Criminal Code to make sure it is recognized.

To branch out a bit beyond police service dogs, having travelled a bit in my capacity as foreign affairs spokesperson, I know that overseas our military uses service dogs to accompany soldiers. Dogs were trained in Afghanistan to help in terms of IEDs, explosives, and munitions. Through their work they provide safety for our military abroad and for civilians who might be affected by conflict. These dogs are there to sniff out explosives so that the explosives can be deactivated and will not be used to kill people. These dogs provide an extraordinarily important service.

We have to understand rescue animals in that context. Particularly with dogs, which I know best, this approach is important.

We also have to understand the importance of these animals in terms of what they are able to provide. It is not just that they are trained to aid and abet the work of first responders, police, military, et cetera; they also provide important support for those people, who are working in highly stressful situations.

We have come to learn a lot about the importance of animals in the field of mental health and the effect dogs can have. I think of what is happening with veterans, for instance. A lot of work being done with veterans uses animals, particularly dogs, to help them. I have seen it with seniors as well. I have seen it with kids with autism, et cetera. It is important to understand this capability, and it is really smart to provide this service to people, because it works.

We have a dog in our home, Wesley. He was a rescue dog from Iqaluit in Nunavut. He is a little West Highland Terrier and a mix of some other breeds—a Heinz 57, if you will, and I know the kind of support he provides our family. My two teenage boys might not be able to talk to me about everything, but certainly they can confide in Wesley. We know that really does help.

We see this as an important good, both for first responders in making sure people are safe as well as in providing that personal support, but there are times when the dogs are put in harm's way or in perilous situations, such as in the example from last October, so it makes sense to put this reform into the Criminal Code. We acknowledge the government's promises in the Speech from the Throne and we look for its commitments on some of the other issues we noted in the Speech from the Throne coming forward as well in regulation legislation.

It is important to note what my colleagues have noted when we are talking about Criminal Code changes. When I was first elected, I recall my colleague from Windsor, the Deputy Speaker, noting the government's agenda on justice matters and saying that it would be really smart to have an overview of the Criminal Code. However, one of the things we should stay away from is putting mandatory minimums on all legislation, which seems to be a dominant response of the Conservative government. The Criminal Code was passed by Parliament and it is important that we get it right, but as my colleague from Montreal stated, the judiciary must have some leeway—some—to interpret and to sentence appropriately after having had a full hearing of evidence provided on a case.

That point is very important when it comes to this piece of legislation and others, simply because when a mandatory minimum law was put in place in the past, judges felt it restricted their ability to sentence in a sensible way. This meant that as a result of the mandatory minimum declaration, justice sometimes could not be done.

That is why, on this side, we believe that a mandatory minimum approach should be restricted to very few cases. Our colleague from Windsor has taught law and understands these issues. I think that the one case for which we have evidence that it might work was in the case of drunk driving, but other than that, we have not seen evidence that it works.

We believe that this is a good initiative. We think that we should go forward, take it to committee, and improve it. We should make sure that the government understands that, as with other justice issues and bills, it should resist the temptation to have mandatory minimums.

On this day, let me say that there is a lot of agreement on the issue. There is a lot of support, and the importance of the issue is recognized. That is a good thing. Let us work together to improve the bill and make sure it is the best bill that we can provide.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after yesterday's events, I would first like to say how proud I am to be able to rise in the House and speak freely in this Parliament and in this democracy. I would like to thank all of the security teams that watched over us and protected us.

There are no words that can truly express the gratitude that I think everyone in the House has for the gentlemen who work to protect the House and all Canadians who come to visit it each day. To stand in the House on this day to speak to this bill is of particular pride.

Bill C-35 is a bill that, in its essence, I am very proud to support. I come from a riding that has a large number of animal lovers. I am a cat person. I recently lost my companion animal. When I open my iPad, it is her little face that I see each time. The desire to protect our animal companions and partners is something of import.

Before I forget, Mr. Speaker, I will let you know that I will be splitting my time with the member for Ottawa Centre.

We are only beginning to make the connection between the four-legged companions by our sides in the domestic and leisure sense. We spend a lot of time, energy and money on the care of these companions. Animals and handlers have that very unique relationship where they are working partners, where these animals willingly put their lives on the line to protect their human handlers. Without question, they put themselves between their partners and bullets or knives. It is only right that we pay them the respect they are due for their unwavering sacrifice and dedication. This is where we come together on Bill C-35.

To be able to say that to harm this animal is to harm myself is extremely important. Unfortunately, where we begin to diverge is in how this is going to be expressed. How are we going to quantify the lives of these animals? Unfortunately, this very noble bill is tainted somewhat by the efforts to yet again introduce mandatory minimum sentences. As I understand our government, we are divided into three spheres: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. There are codes in place that create checks and balances so that no one of these sectors, so to speak, can overpower the other.

With the introduction of minimum mandatory sentences, we run into a situation where we invade the jurisdiction of the judiciary. We take away the ability for our judges, who we entrust with their wisdom and knowledge of law, and the intricacies of human nature and human actions, to justly administer the law.

We call it the justice system for a reason. It is not the vengeance system. It is not the vindictive system. It is the justice system. To mete out justice, one must have the ability to take all things into consideration. Justice may be blind, but it is not deaf and dumb. The ability for a judge to take all the evidence into consideration is something that we protect. It is our job to ensure it is done in a way that speaks to our society.

Unfortunately, yet again, the government introduces minimum mandatory sentences, basically using a sledgehammer to kill a gnat. The importance of being able to create a full picture of what a person has done, what crime a person has committed, is the hallmark of our justice system. The sledgehammer analogy that I used is referring to the fact that for some reason the government seems to shy away from the details, the minutia, of the creation of legislation. They say, “Let us put a bill together. Let us make it wrong to do this thing and let us throw them in prison forever”.

That is not our job. Our job as legislators, and the reason we have debates, is to take a concept, an idea, a bill and go through that bill with a fine tooth comb to ensure that when we come to conclusion, each and every detail results in a bill that serves the people of Canada; that it protects the interests of those we are trying to protect and the rights of those who might be falsely accused; and allows for the judgment, from our judges, to take extenuating circumstances, to take all the information that is presented to them, into consideration in handing out a just sentence. The details of Bill C-35 are virtually absent.

We definitely empathize with the origin of the bill. It is nicknamed Quanto's Law. We understand where it comes from and we agree wholeheartedly that our companion animals, those who serve the people who protect us, help find contraband materials at our borders, help find mines in war zones, and help find lost souls in avalanches, should be protected. However, are they really going to be protected with mandatory minimum sentences?

My colleague spoke to the effect of mandatory minimum sentences. She mentioned that we have no real proof that mandatory minimum sentences work.

In this spirit of camaraderie that was expressed today, I hope we can take this noble bill to committee, to look at how we can give judges the latitude to impose the proper punishments on individuals who harm our friends without making it something which is basically killing a gnat with a sledgehammer.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am very happy to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-35. It is ironic and timely that we are dealing with a bill that deals with law enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals.

I want to reflect for a very short moment on what took place in the House yesterday. Members have stood today to offer their personal reflections. It was really wonderful to hear the speeches this morning from the leaders of the various political parties, from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and to hear the statements in the House. I think it was one of those days that one does not forget.

I have been here 17 years, and I never believed that I would experience a day like we experienced yesterday. Yes, there was a sense of great anxiety and stress about what was taking place, because of course, we did not know what was going on around us, but I think what I am going to remember is the sense of camaraderie and professionalism and people staying calm and staying together. We all have our own personal experience of where we were, who we were with, and what we heard, but listening to pages, to staff, to the security personnel, and our own staff today, in the lobby, and hearing the perspectives of where people are has been really quite remarkable. I have come away with a feeling that, collectively, everyone kept their cool.

It does not sink in until later how really close we came to a terrible disaster, much worse than what happened, and we are grateful for that.

There are things to remember, but we are back at work. Certainly, that is the hallmark of this institution. It is the people's business. We come back, we get on with our work, and we get on to debating bills, because that is what we are elected to do. We do not do that with a sense of hardship; we do it with a sense of mission and a sense of sincerity about who we are and what we need to do. I am very glad to be back in the House today and to see my colleagues in the House from all sides, and in particular, to be debating the bill.

I heard the debate earlier in the day. I will be making some of the points some of my colleagues have made. I think cruelty to animals, intentional cruelty, is something that just about everybody cannot stomach. It is something that hits us all, and it is something we feel compelled to do something about. Of course, we have the law. We have our criminal justice system to provide protections not just to persons and property but also for animal welfare. That is very important, and I think Canadians support that very strongly.

As we heard in the debate today, the bill comes from a particular incident in 2013, when a police service dog was stabbed to death in the line of duty.

I think that as legislators, it is very important that we examine the bill very carefully, because on its surface, one could say that this is a bill that deserves support. It would specifically introduce a new amendment or create a new offence that would specifically prohibit anyone from killing, wounding, poisoning, or injuring trained animals who work for the police, for persons with disabilities, or for the Canadian Armed Forces.

The principle of the bill is something that is very supportable, and of course, that is what we are debating here today: the bill in principle, at second reading. We, in the NDP, will be supporting the bill to go forward to committee.

Having said that, as the official opposition, our job is to look at the details, go through legislation, get underneath the top layer, and figure out what the bill would really do and maybe, importantly, what the consequences of the bill would be. As we have come to know in the House, and with the current government, it is important to look at the details. How many omnibus bills have we gone through and found terrible surprises in? There have been really awful pieces of legislation that have chucked out other pieces of legislation. The details in a bill become very important.

That is no different for the bill we are debating here today. I would say it is concerning, looking at this bill, because while we have a bill that has good intention, when we look at the details, we can see that it would introduce minimum sentencing and that it does reflect a pattern we have seen from the government over and over again. It is very disturbing.

I have said in the House quite a few times that we should be keeping a list of how the Criminal Code has changed so significantly. We have had all of these bills come through. Some of them have been government bills. Many of them have been private members' bills. They are kind of like these little boutique bills, which one by one pick off this section or that section of the Criminal Code. I guess somebody keeps track of it.

I do recall that one of the terrible things that happened in the House through legislation was that the Law Reform Commission was abolished. I am sure the Speaker will recall this, because he would have debated it in the House when it came forward. It was the Law Reform Commission of Canada's job to go through legislation, evaluate it at a long distance, and give us an overview to give us an oversight. It was abolished.

There is a big question here over who keeps track of what all these changes mean cumulatively and what the consequences are. We certainly try to do that as the opposition. We try to keep track of all of these bills, look at all the little holes and changes they create in the Criminal Code, and see what the total effect is. That is a lot of work.

Here is another example of a bill that, on the surface, may look fairly innocent but, in the detail, does actually have consequences. It is a bill that would bring forward minimum sentencing and provisions around serving consecutively.

Some people may ask what the big deal is about that or whether there is any problem with that. The problem is that our judicial system is based on a history and tradition of prosecution, defence, and the role of the judge in terms of being able to use discretion. The judge is able to look at individual cases as being unique. When we create laws that become, in effect, a one-size-fits-all and that are so hyper-prescriptive, we create problems. This is because when we do it to an extreme, the law does not necessarily fit and cannot meet the circumstances of what a particular case might be about. That is why we have judges who can look at the law, apply provisions, and use this word “discretion”. I sometimes worry that discretion has become a dirty word in this place, yet it is a hallmark of our judicial system.

I am talking about creeping mandatory minimum sentences. I do not know how many bills we have now had in the House that have had those provisions now put in them. It is not just the current government, by the way. There were mandatory minimums with the previous government as well, and there always was the existence of some mandatory minimums. It is not as if there is never a situation where they should not apply, but now they have become so pervasive in the system that they have almost become the lowest common denominator—slap in a mandatory minimum.

I have this little picture in my head of a group of interns or staffers somewhere, who are combing through the Criminal Code section by section and saying, “Hah, mandatory minimum. We could put one there. We could put one here”.

I may be exaggerating a bit, but I sometimes feel that is what is going on, that there is this pattern of seeking out instances where mandatory minimums can be applied, and it is fundamentally changing our judicial system. It is certainly a problem with the bill before us, and I think it is very important that we examine the bill in great detail in committee.

I hope very much that when the bill goes to the justice committee, I presume, government members will not use their majority to then slap on time limits. We are facing that in the public safety committee right now on a bill that has to do with an issue very important to me, which is safe injection sites in this country. It is a complex and important bill, and I find it incredible that at committee there are two meetings for witnesses and that is the end of it—just two meetings. When we get to amendments, I think the motion says that there will be no more than five minutes or something like that. The censorship and limitation that are now placed on the debate and examination of bills is quite ferocious and, in and of itself, very harmful.

We are not here to hold stuff up. I mean, occasionally that does happen. We might have a bill that we just dig in and say that we will hold it up as long as we can, but by and large we are not here to hold things up. We are here to give proper consideration both in the House at second reading and in committee with amendments and then when it comes back to the House for report stage and third reading.

Therefore, when the bill goes to committee, I hope the committee will be fair and consider that there should not be limits placed on it in terms of the timeline for its consideration, so that the committee can look at some of the questions that I and others have identified today in debate.

I am not on the justice committee, but I am sure others will raise this. It is to look at Department of Justice reports that actually tell us that mandatory minimum sentences have not had a demonstrable deterrent effect. This is something to consider. We go to these extraordinary lengths to change legislation and have it go through the House, the Senate, and the whole process, yet there is really no evidence to show us whether or not it is a deterrent. In fact, the opposite may be true in that the misuse of mandatory minimum sentences, as my colleague said earlier, leads to a downloading to provinces, overcrowding, and skyrocketing costs. These are very real consequences. Provincial budgets are tight. Again, the question is who is tracking that.

I have seen some information come out on the impact of mandatory minimum sentences. I think the Canadian Bar Association has been doing some work on tracking what the impact is, and there has been some work done on a bill that dealt with mandatory minimums for drug crimes. In fact, there was a court case in British Columbia in which a judge refused to go along with the mandatory minimum aspect, and that is now under review.

There are some very serious questions that need to be considered in the bill. This needs to be done in the context of a larger impact in terms of the Criminal Code and our justice system. I think it is very important and incumbent upon us not to ignore that fact. If we just look at these as one-offs, we will never understand the full picture.

What bothers me the most is the strong sense I have that the way the government operates is that for every problem the Conservatives identify, they see the solution as a new law that is harsher.

Some of these questions are complex social questions, and there is no evidence to suggest that a tougher law, a law-and-order approach, is going to actually solve anything. In fact, it might very likely make the situation worse. These things really bother me, and I have certainly seen these changes taking place over a number of years.

However, to come back to the bill itself, we think there are some good aspects in it that should warrant our support. I know that my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and my colleague from Parkdale—High Park have put forward initiatives that deal with animal cruelty. I myself have a bill that also deals with this issue. I have presented thousands of petitions in the House about cruelty to cats and dogs in terms of the use of their fur from overseas, and how it should be banned as it has been banned in other countries.

There are numerous initiatives that we have within the NDP to protect against animal cruelty, and certainly we have a huge appreciation for the role that law-enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals play in our society. Again, I come back to yesterday when it was very visible. These are highly trained animals. They are well cared for. They are intelligent. We do not want to see them come into harm's way. We do not want to see vicious attacks on these animals, just as we do not want to see attacks on people. It is not as if we do not care; in fact, we care very much, and the bills we have put forward ourselves in private members' business are evidence of that.

Still, we have to worry about this bill. I have a concern that it is just going to flow right through and we will not have that examination, but we should and we want to ensure that the provisions in Bill C-35 are no different from the penalties and fines already set out in section 445 of the Criminal Code for all animals other than cattle. There is a lot to examine here.

I appreciate the fact that my colleagues have spoken today. We do want to say this for the government. Why is it so important that the government wants to take away sentencing discretion from the courts? Are the Conservatives aware of their own justice department's work about mandatory minimums and whether or not they are a deterrent? Are they aware of how mandatory minimums are undermining the entire legal process? I do not know if there is that knowledge on the government side, whether or not the Conservatives are curious to know the answers to those questions. I can only say that we are, and we think it should be followed up.

In closing, I would like to add my voice along with my colleagues in saying that we certainly support this bill going to committee. It does require further examination. It does need to be looked at in the context of other legislation where mandatory minimums have been brought in. We need to look at the impacts on the provincial system, we need to look at the costs, and we need to ask some tough questions. We need to be intelligent and rational about how we proceed on these kinds of measures. We need to look at evidence, not political doctrine. At the end of the day, that is what is most important. We are here to uphold the public interest. We are here to uphold the notion of merit, evidence, and analysis. Let us remember that when we consider this bill further, and let us hope we can make some sensible decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, and especially the member for LaSalle—Émard for sharing her time with me. I also want to congratulate her for her comments earlier today on the state of security on Parliament Hill. She gave a beautiful tribute to our security guards.

I find it quite fitting that today we are debating Bill C-35. As the title clearly says, this is an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals. We recently witnessed some rather extreme violence on Parliament Hill. We must pay tribute to those who are there every day to protect us and protect the institution of Parliament and the parliamentarians, elected members, senators, workers and assistants who work on Parliament Hill. We owe a lot to the security guards who were there to protect us yesterday.

The fact that we are debating Bill C-35 today highlights the fact that officers are not the only ones who are there. There are also service dogs. We saw this yesterday, and we see them all the time. These animals are prepared to risk their lives, consciously or not, to protect our society. We owe them a lot. That is why the bill before us today is laudable. It is a good bill, which has been called Quanto's law.

Quanto's Law is in memory of an Edmonton police service dog that was stabbed to death trying to stop a fleeing suspect in October 2013. A certain suspect pleaded guilty to animal cruelty and other offences, including evading police. He was sentenced to 26 months in prison and banned from owning a pet for 25 years.

It is particularly interesting that the current law as it stands, article 445 of the Criminal Code, already establishes penalties for committing an offence, whether it be killing an animal, maiming an animal, wounding, poisoning, et cetera.

Certainly, when it comes to police dogs, it would certainly be incorporated into this law, but we already have a law. The law right now proposes that a person who commits an offence, if it is an indictable offence, is liable to a maximum of five years imprisonment. If the person is found guilty of an offence on summary conviction, the person is liable to one or both of a maximum of $10,000 in fines and/or imprisonment up to 18 months. This law would change that.

This is subtle, but I will try to explain. The bill would amend section 445 such that anyone found guilty of attacking an animal could be sentenced to up to five years in prison, and the minimum punishment is six months in prison.

Once again, the government is imposing a minimum sentence—and I will come back to that shortly—in cases where a law enforcement animal is killed while aiding a law enforcement officer in enforcing the law, where the offence is prosecuted by indictment. If a law enforcement animal is injured or killed in the line of duty, the punishment for the offence would be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person.

Currently, when judges sentence offenders, the sentences can be served at the same time or consecutively. When they are consecutive, that means the time adds up and the sentence is cumulative. In this situation, someone who kills a animal on duty that is actively trying to prevent the commission of a crime will receive a consecutive sentence. It will not be consecutive if the animal in question is helping a police officer who is trying to prevent a crime. The nuance is subtle, but it is there.

Nevertheless, this bill is flawed. It includes minimum sentences, thereby removing the judge's discretion in some situations. The trial judge knows the facts and is perfectly capable of deciding what sentence should be imposed.

When judges are forced to hand down a particular sentence, they are very reluctant to do so. Some judges have even refused to impose minimum sentences. Cases go to the appeal court or even the Supreme Court, which decides whether the sentence is constitutional.

Why would the government seek to implement a measure that could be deemed unconstitutional when it could have immediately moved forward with a bill that was worthwhile in itself? The mandatory minimum sentence makes it very hard to support this bill. Members, at least those in the opposition, should support this bill at second reading. That way, we could examine it in committee and have a more extensive debate. We could invite experts to appear who will explain the consequences of this measure.

I believe that there will be a consensus. The bill is worthwhile and the amendment to section 445 of the Criminal Code is a good idea, except for the fact that the government is going to impose a minimum sentence.

If the government were prepared to remove this aspect of the bill, I believe we would be more likely to reach a consensus among ourselves and with the witnesses who would appear before the committee to participate in a debate on the bill. In my opinion, many experts would not agree with the bill because of the minimum sentences. Regardless, I would like to hear from these experts, listen to their opinions and better understand whether they consider that the bill is constitutional and has merit and whether it should move forward.

We have time to send this bill to committee. I hope that we will have a very interesting and thorough debate. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have once again made a rather fundamental error in the wording of the bill. That is something that the Conservative government seems to be intent on doing. It has no qualms about constantly adding minimum sentences to bills.

I would like the government to look at what is happening in other jurisdictions. Quebec has determined that cruelty toward animals must be redefined. Harsher sentences are needed. This issue really needs to be examined, and more appropriate sentences are required. In Quebec, this debate will certainly take place, regardless of what happens with the bill before us.

With this bill, particularly given the mandatory minimum, the province in question will end up with people who have been found guilty in its provincial prisons. The province will have to foot the bill. Once again, the federal government is going to download costs to the provinces without providing any assistance.

Minimum sentences do not work for several reasons. One of the main reasons is that the province will once again be left with the costs imposed by the federal government, without any assistance from the feds. I would remind the House that section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out certain principles on which sentences are supposed to be based. I have to wonder whether mandatory minimums reflect the principles of section 718.

Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in the past, and it is important that we also examine it in the House and in committee.

I support this bill at second reading, but I hope the experts will explain the consequences to us in full.