Justice Committee on April 27th, 2015

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Well, look, this has long been debated in legal circles. I've spent time in a courtroom, as have you. I've taken part in prosecution and defence. My general belief, and the belief of many, I would suggest, is that general and specific deterrence is not only used regularly and routinely every day in a courtroom, but also that it does have effect, as does the reporting of it for general deterrence. Upon hearing that a stiffer penalty, a period of incarceration, could result, individuals who might be similarly inclined may be impacted

How do we measure that to a nicety? In many cases, it is very much based on how people themselves react and what they say about the impact that had on them: whether they were going to bring a gun to a robbery, for example; whether, after having already been convicted of a similar offence, they were going to go out and commit that offence again upon fear of facing a stiffer penalty.

I suspect that for you and I, while we may disagree on a subject matter, this isn't going to be resolved any time soon. We are going to continue to have this debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm going to resolve it right now. We're moving on.

Thank you very much. Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner is Mr. Dechert, from the Conservative party.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for appearing today.

You mentioned in your opening remarks that the animal that was the impetus for this bill, Quanto, was a law enforcement animal. I note in the bill that there are also two other definitions: “military animal” and “service animal”. In some cases there are slightly different penalties with respect to the killing or injury to those animals.

I wonder if you could tell us the rationale for extending Quanto's law to encompass service animals and military animals, as well as law enforcement animals?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Well, the rationale for that, Mr. Dechert, and thank you for that question, was to capture that broader category of service animals. Above and beyond those working in law enforcement, this would also involve the type of animals we see working in border services, with the military, but also those animals that each and every day are interacting with the general public and providing a real benefit and a service, not only to individuals but to society generally.

There was a time not that many years ago when it was almost frowned upon for a person to have an animal with them in a mall, in public areas. Now we are seeing the utility that these animals bring. We're ratcheting up, if you will, the threshold of protecting those animals while they're working.

When the animals are in training—and this was something, quite frankly, that I needed to remind myself of—you're not supposed to approach them. Those who have animals with them while they're working will remind you: “Look, I'm sorry, but don't pat this animal. It's working. It's in the process of providing a service.”

I mention that only to underscore that these are animals of great social utility; they deserve greater protection, greater recognition. In fact, I'm also hopeful that they will benefit from greater inclusion and understanding of the role that they provide. Part of the criminal sanctions are for the purpose of protection. Part of this exercise, we hope, is to have a greater understanding of how we work with our four-legged friends and that what they do is of real benefit for our country.

Mr. Chair, not far from where we're gathered here, we have a statue that was built to recognize a dog that gave its life in service of Canada during the war. It picked up a grenade in its mouth and ran away from the soldiers who were gathered in that area, and thus when the explosion went off, the animal died. It's the same thing in Newfoundland and Labrador. There was a very famous dog that was a mascot for the Royal Newfoundland Regiment that gave its life in the service of the country.

These are acts of heroism by our furry little friends that really deserve recognition. Similarly, and not to in any way diminish the importance of it, they deserve protection under the law.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I know a woman who has a seeing-eye guide dog, and not only is this dog absolutely essential to her ability to live a normal life and get around in a very congested city like Toronto, but also, a real bond has developed between the owner and that animal. If that animal were destroyed for any reason, it would not be easy to replace.

I was wondering if you could tell us whether consultations were held on the development of Quanto's law and, if so, who was consulted and when they were consulted.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Dechert, to answer that question directly, there weren't the types of consultations, for example, that might normally occur, but we saw consultations and empirical data and information being gathered by one of our colleagues to present a private member's bill.

The commitment in the Speech from the Throne came about, and in large part this bill was drawn, from that private member's bill. As well, there were visits to police training quarters and there were opportunities to hear directly from those who had worked with service animals, both in the military and police and otherwise. Again, our colleague, Costas Menegakis, gathered a body of evidence and information, and we gathered some information in the course of making that commitment in the Speech from the Throne.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

What kind of reaction have you received from the public in Canada? My late mother was a great believer in the value of animals. She was a dog trainer and showed dogs and she used to say to me all the time, “there are no bad dogs, only bad people”. What kind of reaction are you getting from the general public?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I must say, having grown up on a farm, we always had dogs. Some of my closest friends...and in fact one of the police officers in my hometown is the dog man, as they say, and he has trained several animals and used them in the course of his career. He has given evidence before this committee. His name is Sergeant Duane Rutledge.

Time and time again when the subject comes up, which it does on occasion, the public is overwhelmingly in favour and supportive of anything that would protect a service animal. There is, I think, a tremendous and even growing respect for the service animals, police dogs in particular. You're seeing all sorts of different animals. When you go to the United States, for example, you see giant poodles being used at airports, which are not dogs you would normally associate with that type of work, but their olfactory senses are very accurate. So different types of animals provide different services.

There are the comfort animals. Some will sleep in the same room as a soldier suffering from post-traumatic stress and wake them up when they're having night terrors, and they will provide the type of comfort and companionship that is so very important to somebody who is feeling anxiety. The dog can actually sense that anxiety, whereas another person might not. That is a gift, and, I would suggest, what those animals do is of great value and is in need of protection.

You referenced the bond that's formed between persons and animals. It's a very real thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Our next questioner from the New Democratic Party is Madam Péclet.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you for your question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Yes, it is the mandatory minimum for a higher-end type of offence, where, based on the facts of the case, it results in a determination that the animal was deliberately killed. There's also the consecutive sentence element. Very often what will happen is that an individual involved in assaulting or killing a police officer similarly has done harm to the animal, because they work in that team environment. That sets it apart from the existing Criminal Code sections that pertain to animals. They simply don't have that law enforcement component. I hope I'm not going out on a limb here, but it's akin to the recognition under the Criminal Code of an assault on an individual versus an assault on a police officer, in the context of an animal.

Again, I say for emphasis that we looked not only at this particular offence. We also looked at the range of sentences that were applied in cases involving animals that were not service animals and determined that a higher penalty, including the mandatory minimum and the elevated fine, was reflective of the need to protect those animals and the special role they play in society because of their work.

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

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

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

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

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

I spoke to Mr. Casey's question similarly. What's envisioned here is that in every case you're going to look at the individual circumstances that result in the charge or the offence, whether it was an assault on the animal causing harm or whether it was the death of the animal. What's envisioned here is that you have to take into circumstances the condition of the accused and what was in their mind. That mens rea could be affected by a mental illness. It could be affected by—

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

Or the fear of the....

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

The fear certainly, and the previous experience they might have had as a child, for example if they were bitten and now have an elevated fear.

Those circumstances would be taken into consideration in both the attempt by the prosecution to achieve a conviction, but also I suspect by a sentencing judge. So we felt that the lawful excuse, which is available in the Criminal Code, should apply to this offence. It's not a strict liability offence and the circumstances there, the example that I give, very much go to the mens rea. What was in the mind of the accused when he interacted with this animal in a violent way? Did he use what he thought was proportionate force in attempting to protect himself? If, when the dog grabbed him on the arm he grabbed him on the throat, that might justify the individual having to use lethal force to prevent...and to save his own life, or to save the life of somebody else. So it would be very much predicated on all those circumstances at the time of the offence, which would be examined by a court of competent jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner from the Conservative Party is Mr. Wilks.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks, Minister, for being here today.

Every few months I go out to plaque 16 and name 20, which is that of Michael Buday, who was killed on March 19, 1985, as he took his dog, Trooper, to detain Michael Eugene Oros, and was shot in the back of the neck. He is unfortunately not with us any more, but he is probably the epitome of a dog handler. They are the first in and the last out.

You mentioned earlier, Minister, law enforcement animals and what they are used for, but I wonder if you could maybe take us down the road a little about the training they undergo and where that takes place, from the perspective of the RCMP anyway, and anything else you might want to add.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wilks.

As I've done on other occasions, and as I know other witnesses have, I thank you for your service in uniform. Your experience, I think, is very important and instructive on a number of these cases.

You referenced the training regime that these animals go through. What I have seen in both the police training of animals and the military training—and they're often contract employees—is that it's extremely demanding or rigorous. These animals are selected the same way that Olympic athletes might be selected. Again, I don't think that's a stretch because many of these animals just don't make the cut, they don't have the physical prowess. We have an Olympian here, Kyle Seeback, who can speak to that as well.

But I truly believe that it goes back to the question of the value that we place on these animals, the investment. Some of these animals, when you calculate that training regime, the investment of time and effort put in by individuals with expertise in the area, you're talking about a value of tens of thousands of dollars. These are not show animals; these are work animals. These are specimens known for their strength, their endurance, and their ability to respond to commands.

Every dog, as you know and as you alluded to, forms a very special bond with their handler. There is, again, that very special esprit de corps that exists in dog handling units. They are ready to die for one another and they are very often in circumstances where that possibility exists.

I come back to the very important point that I think these are animals deserving the type of protection afforded to them by placing greater emphasis on deterring individuals or anyone who would deliberately harm an animal in the provision of that service.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

I can say, Minister, I've been on the practice end of a service dog several times and you want to ensure that you lead with the arm because if you don't, things don't turn out well.

I don't know if you or the staff that you have with you are the ones to ask, but in the definition section “law enforcement animal” means a “dog or a horse”, but then when we go to “military animal and service animal” it says only “means an animal”. I wonder if there is a reason why it was termed that way under this bill.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

The simple answer is that for the purposes of law enforcement—at least in this country, although there are some examples I could give from other jurisdictions we looked at—it is limited to a dog and horse. Those are really the only animals that have been used in Canada for law enforcement in our history.

Military animal and service animal could conceivably involve a broader definition. One that comes to mind that has not been used for decades is carrier pigeons, but that again is not a very good modern example.

We have seen the use of primates in other jurisdictions for military purposes. Some individuals, persons with disabilities, may find innovative ways in which animals are able to help them in the daily conduct of their lives, but the classic examples that we have seen, for border services, for police, for military, are dogs that are used for protection, for searches, whether that be for narcotics or other illicit substances, and VIP protection.

Crowd control is another one. There are also avalanche and search and rescue dogs. In the context of the tragic circumstances we are seeing unfolding in Nepal, we know that animals provide invaluable service in their ability to respond to avalanches as we are seeing in the Himalayas.

That was the reason we tried to constrain the example in the law enforcement context to animals being dogs and horses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

On Wednesday, we have four witnesses and we have set aside two hours. If we use the two hours, great. If not, that's what has been provided.

With that, I'll suspend.