Thank you, Mr. Goguen.
As I just said in an exchange with Madame Boivin, this is, I think, a reflection of society's condemnation of those who would wilfully injure animals generally. The other obvious example that we see, which is encompassed here, is that those animals with specified duties that serve the public more broadly—the individuals who are suffering from a disability, those who use animals day to day—provide a tremendous societal benefit. To deliberately target, injure, harm, or kill an animal with those responsibilities, we think, deserves a commensurate punishment that puts emphasis on the need to protect them. That in fact is what we're doing here. We're attempting to put greater protections in place for those animals who are protecting society at large through their service.
I agree with your assessment. I think that Canadians generally would be very much in favour of this. I haven't really heard any rational reasons that this legislation wouldn't be welcomed, other than some discussion around the mandatary minimum penalties. Just to conclude your answer, the court, having already handed down a penalty that exceeds the mandatory minimum, even in an extreme circumstance where the dog Quanto was killed, I think, provides us a good example that it would in fact be upheld as constitutionally proportionate.