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.