Of course, in that instance, Quanto was killed. The act goes on to create an offence not only for killing animals but also for maiming, wounding, poisoning, and injuring. We know by the definition of this act that the whole purpose of the act is denunciation and deterrence in regard to wounding animals that of course can't speak for themselves.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently reflected upon the question of mandatory minimum sentences, and of course, the whole issue there was a mandatory minimum sentence that was proportionate to the crime committed. My sense of this is the sense of ordinary Canadians, and I don't think the ordinary Canadian or the ordinary dog lover would have any kind of problem with a mandatory minimum sentence of six months being imposed for the maiming, killing, or wounding of a service animal in the enforcement of the act's powers.
What's your sense of that? Perhaps we're not even going far enough. Look at the value of these animals, the amount of training, the work ethic, the courage, and the unyielding will to follow your orders.
What are your thoughts?