Debates of Nov. 28th, 2014

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

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He raised some important points.

I know he thinks it is important to discuss Canadians' priorities in the House of Commons.

Does he think that the bill we are debating at length here, without too many speeches from the government side, is a high priority for Canadians?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, because that takes us back again to earlier in the debate when our friend from Timmins—James Bay was talking about the imbalance, as he saw it, in the priorities of this government, where we have bill after bill with significant, complicated issues getting time allocation. It in fact is in excess of 80.

I do not want to minimize the fact that it is important to take care of the service animals that the police use, and the search and rescue animals, and we support this bill in essence. However, we find it interesting that bills that have very significant issues with which Canadians are very concerned are pushed aside with time allocation, and the bill before us is getting a lot more time, and it should be just sent to committee.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of C-35, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to law enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals, Quanto's law.

In contradiction to the comments just made by the opposition members, I think these are actually very important pieces of legislation to discuss and move forward. This one actually has a huge impact on all Canadians.

This bill is named after Quanto, a dedicated and decorated Edmonton Police Service animal that was killed last year while assisting in the apprehension of a fleeing subject. Quanto's death was widely reported across the country. It reignited efforts by police to have the Criminal Code amended to specifically criminalize acts on law enforcement animals and, more importantly, to recognize the valuable services they provide to Canadians, slightly in contrast to what the opposition member commented on earlier.

A commitment was made in the Speech from the Throne. I am pleased to be able to speak about this very important bill today. I am also pleased to see that the bill has proposed and would provide specific protections, not just to law enforcement animals but to other kinds of service animals, mainly military animals and service animals that assist individuals with disabilities.

Having seen the assistance that these animals provide, particularly for those individuals who have disabilities, I think this is extremely important and something that Canadians overwhelmingly support.

The proposed amendments would amend the Criminal Code to create a specific offence prohibiting the wilful and unlawful killing or injury of a law enforcement, service, or military animal. The bill defines each of these terms:

...“law enforcement animal” means a dog or horse that is trained to aid a law enforcement officer in carrying out that officer’s duties.

While the focus of this bill has properly been on Quanto, a German shepherd, I think it is important to recall that horses are also still a significant part of Canadian law enforcement agencies. For example, police service animals are used in crowd control situations. They are well suited for this type of patrol activity, as long as they are trained properly. Officers on the horses have a commanding view of the crowd.

More importantly, the added height and visibility the horses give their riders serve in both ways: they allow officers to see what is going on in the wider area, but they also allow people in that area to know where the officers are. This helps deter crime, but it also helps people find the officers when they need them.

I had first-hand experience with this, having been in New York City in an urgent circumstance. I was in downtown New York, travelling with my younger sibling. She is a diabetic, and she experienced a reaction. I had taken her out of the cab we were in, and the first person I saw was a law enforcement officer on horseback, who came immediately to our aid and was able to support us.

I would not have seen such individuals if they were just walking in the crowd. I was able to see the officer immediately and got care immediately for my sibling, and she was actually taken to a hospital within a few minutes.

That is very similar to incidents like one in May 2010, when two street vendors in New York sought help after they saw smoke rising from what turned out to be a crude car bomb. Again, it was an opportunity for citizens to react, to know where help is, to move to those police officers who could respond and clearly help innocent bystanders, moving them out of the way, and to help the circumstances.

In an emergency, the horses are able to move through the crowd easily. During non-emergency situations, horses and officers are typically well received by crowds. Well-trained horses do not spook when they hear loud noises or sudden bangs, and they stand firm and calm, often calming the crowd.

I am certain members will also recall a very high-profile incident that occurred in 2006, when Brigadier, an eight-year-old Toronto Police Service horse, was killed in the line of duty by a motor vehicle whose driver barrelled into the horse and mounted officer. Both of Brigadier's front legs were broken, the left one shattered so badly that he never could have recovered. Brigadier had to be put down after a long term of service.

A military animal, according to the new act:

...means an animal that is trained to aid a member of the Canadian Forces in carrying out that member’s duties.

A service animal is defined as:

....an animal that is required by a person with a disability for assistance and is certified, in writing, as having been trained by a professional service animal institution to assist a person with a disability.

Most Canadians see this work every day. They see these animals in the workplace and community aiding individuals with disabilities so they can get better access to their community and all of their surroundings.

The conduct described by the offence is also prohibited under the more general animal cruelty offences, which apply to all animals. However, their targeted nature reflects the somewhat distinct harm caused when a service animal is attacked, relative to animals that might otherwise just be pets, for instance.

The new offence would carry a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment on indictment, and 18 months and/or a fine of up to $10,000 on summary conviction. This is also consistent with the sentencing range for the more general animal cruelty offences. However, Bill C-35 would require courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence as sentencing objectives in respect of the new offence.

Many have spoken in this chamber about the importance of protecting law enforcement animals and animals that perform valuable services for other government agencies, such as the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian Forces. However, I will speak specifically to the aspect of the legislation with respect to protecting service animals, which perform tasks that permit individuals with disabilities to live more independent lives.

Like their counterparts that assist police services, service animals perform a variety of functions. Perhaps the most well known to most Canadians are seeing-eye dogs that assist visually impaired individuals to navigate through their daily lives. These animals, in particular, have opened up wide and far-reaching experiences for Canadians with visible and visual disabilities.

However, there other kinds of service animals. Just as guide dogs are trained to alert their owners to potential hazards they cannot see, hearing dogs are similarly trained with respect to fire alarms and to make sure that those with hearing impairments are well taken care of.

For children who have a dog that hears for them, it allows them to more purposely participate in their everyday school activities and, quite frankly, interact with all of their classmates. It allows them to know when the bell rings so they can go out from school. Therefore, it would be a travesty if at any point in time one of these animals were injured, because it would severely limit these children's opportunity to participate in their daily lives at school.

People with mental disabilities make use of psychiatric service dogs to retrieve medications, activate a medical alert, or to be led out of a crowd when anxious.

A person who has epilepsy or other seizure disorders may have a seizure alert assist dog, a seizure response dog, or animal to alert him or her when a seizure might be upcoming. The animal will steer their owner away from danger during a seizure or something that may activate a medical challenge.

Other types of service dogs can assist persons with physical disabilities, whether helping someone out of a wheelchair, carrying specific objects, pushing buttons, using the elevator, or providing balance for a person with mobility challenges.

I can tell members that these animals play a pivotal role for Canadians with disabilities. It means that they can better integrate into their communities. It means that they can go out and enjoy time with their friends, as opposed to staying only at home. It often means just functioning well at home for the basic necessities so they can lead more independent lives.

As I have said before, making sure that these animals are well protected and protected under the Criminal Code is essential. The limitations for these Canadians if they did not have service would be devastating.

The training of a service animal is an expensive proposition and represents months of work. These animals must be trained to be good natured and obedient in a variety of circumstances, to protect their owners, and to interact well with the public. Some breeds are better than others, but we know that dogs are mostly chosen because they are friendly, loyal, and patient. Typically, a potential service animal undergoes extensive behavioural training before being accepted into a training program

Service dogs work with their disabled partners to enable them to have more independence and freedom. Therefore, I think we should be thanking the individuals who train these animals and the animals themselves for their service and companionship.

I am pleased to support this bill and encourage all here in the House of Commons to support it, because it so overwhelmingly helps individuals with disabilities to lead more independent lives and to integrate better into Canadian society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the opposite side for her presentation. I too agree with her that this bill has a lot of merit. It merits going to committee for more discussion. There are certain elements in this bill that deserve expert testimony to see if the elements that are being presented are the best ways to bring this matter forward. However, overall, bringing it to committee is definitely a step we should be encouraging all members to support.

I would ask this question for the member. When it comes to the minimum sentences that this bill is introducing, does she not agree that there have been an awful lot of challenges in courts regarding minimum sentences, and that this is costing the judicial system and the taxpayer a lot of money? There is a lot of labour expended from our justice department, defending elements of bills that are finally being defeated in the court, and they only have to be brought back to this House for another look. Should we not be asking experts their position on minimum sentences?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments that this should go to committee for a fulsome discussion. I am delighted to hear that the opposition supports that.

As I mentioned before—and we should be very clear—a service animal and the death of that service animal have a resounding impact on a Canadian. If there are individuals who believe that the willful harm of these animals should not face the full extent of the law, I completely disagree. We should be moving forward to ensure that these service animals, animals that serve police officers but more importantly those who are disabled, are well protected. I am fully supportive of what we are doing here, because it enforces that opportunity for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. In particular, I appreciated that she shared her personal story. She clearly understands the importance of these animals.

I would simply like to reiterate a point that has already been mentioned by my colleague regarding minimum sentences and so on. The NDP will be supporting this bill. That said, even the Minister of Justice said that minimum sentences have not had a demonstrable deterrent effect.

Can the hon. member share evidence or scientific studies that can explain why there are minimum sentences in this bill?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, it is extremely important that Canadians understand how important it is that these service animals are available to support Canadians.

Similar to the opposition, I look forward to the discussion that takes place at committee. That fulsome debate is always constructive, and we will definitely move this bill toward its endpoint, which is becoming law and therefore enforceable, so these animals are protected and therefore are of service to Canadians.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to this legislative measure, which is so important that it was part of the throne speech in 2013. I have to say that as I was preparing for this debate, I learned a lot about the work done by service animals. Whether through their work with the police, the army or disabled people, history proves that bonds develop between animals and humans.

This bill is designed to amend the Criminal Code in order to add protections for service animals by toughening sentences in cases of violence against these animals.

I would like to talk to my colleagues about three key aspects of the bill: the important role that service animals play in Canadian society, the government's overuse of minimum sentencing and the message that this bill sends to judges.

In the history of humanity, the domestication of animals was an important step in the emergence of civilization. Clearly, we have made significant progress in how we treat animals. Over time, we have created laws prohibiting all forms of animal cruelty. The NDP has done its share to defend animal rights by introducing bills C-232 and C-592, for example.

As for service animals in particular, humans are able to fill certain gaps by using trained animals. We just have to look at the canine units at law enforcement agencies. Whether we are talking about the RCMP, the provincial police, the Canada Border Services Agency, or the Canadian Armed Forces, animals play an important role in ensuring public safety.

They are used in many situations, whether for helping in search and rescue, detecting explosives or drugs, or pursuing criminals. They are used for tracking missing persons, crowd control, and so forth.

This bill is also referred to as Quanto's law in memory of an Edmonton police service dog who worked with a sergeant. Quanto was stabbed to death trying to stop a fleeing suspect. He had an exceptional service record. He was a decorated dog and was involved in over 100 arrests.

We often think of dogs in canine units, but we must also acknowledge the work of equine units in certain law enforcement agencies. The horses help enhance police officers' visibility in locations that are hard to access.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the exceptional work of service animals who help the disabled to be more functional in our society.

One of my constituents, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from his deployment in Afghanistan by the Canadian army, recognizes how important his service animal is to his healing process. These animals become a little like family members.

We must not underestimate the cost of training and raising these animals. It costs the RCMP $60,000 to train a single German shepherd. The RCMP currently has 157 police dogs in service across Canada. It costs the MIRA Foundation $30,000 to train a service dog. In spite of the costs, we appreciate the work these animals do.

I think that everyone in the House agrees with everything I have said so far. We all appreciate the work that canine and equine teams do. Problems arise when we take a closer look at the clauses in this bill. As they say, the devil is in the details.

I have a number of questions that I hope we can get some answers to. How many service dogs are attacked each year? What is the real impact of minimum sentences on offenders? What deterrent effect will there be?

I would really like the Conservatives to show us some studies that clearly demonstrate the deterrent effect of minimum sentences. That is why this bill needs to go to committee. In his spring 2014 report, the Auditor General expressed concern about overpopulation in prisons. The needs are desperate and growing, but prisons cannot keep up. Stretch an elastic too far, and it is liable to snap and hit you in the face.

The Auditor General even found a direct correlation between mandatory minimum sentences and overpopulation in prisons.

By continuing to increase minimum sentences, we endangering the very people who use service animals in their work. Is that really what the government wants?

Correctional officers are one of the professional groups at high risk of violence in the workplace. What is even more troubling is that the Auditor General's office believes that prison capacities have been stretched so thin that this could adversely affect offender rehabilitation.

Canadians believe in rehabilitation and social reintegration in correctional environments, but overusing minimum sentences, as this government is currently doing, really worries me and the people of my riding.

Canadians also believe that the efficiency of the justice system depends on competent judges who carefully examine each case individually and render decisions in accordance with our laws.

For the past few years, however, the government has been tying the hands of judges. It is taking away their power to make decisions based on each individual case. As we know, the Conservatives have been rebuked several times in Supreme Court decisions, which is a waste of time and money for Canadians.

We therefore have to be careful about the scope of these laws, so as to not limit judicial discretion in Canada. We must not take any more discretionary power away from our courts of justice.

The NDP denounces any form of cruelty to animals. That is a fact. I would like to take a moment to recognize the terrific work being done by all kinds of service animals and their teams.

However, it is important to think seriously about the consequences of minimum and consecutive sentencing. That is why I recommend that the bill be studied further by experts in civil society, people who use service animals, and above all, legal experts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very interesting speech. I also support the bill we are debating today.

I would like to hear my colleague talk a little more about the Conservatives' approach, because this is certainly not the first bill we have seen with minimum sentences.

Could she talk about the other bills the Conservatives have introduced that contain minimum sentences? Could she also talk about the effect these bills will have on our prisons and about Canada's approach to this?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for giving me the opportunity to speak to this topic, which isn't exactly what we are debating today, but it has consequences and is found in almost all of the bills this government introduces.

The Conservatives always give discretionary powers to the ministers in their bills. We have seen this with immigration bills, among others, as well as a number of bills I have heard people debate in the House.

This is very dangerous for our democracy. It is a hard thing to control. I have seen a judge use his discretionary power to punish an offender by having him wash windows for community groups for a certain number of hours, because the young offender had broken windows.

If the government imposes minimum sentences, judges no longer have that discretionary power and can no longer hand down punishments that will help offenders rejoin society more quickly.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

My question for her is the same that I have asked a number of members who spoke to Bill C-35.

The Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women surprised me. Although this was originally a private member's bill, it has suddenly become a huge priority for this government.

Does the government not have priorities other than extensively debating a bill on which members are unanimous in many respects? Does my colleague find that worrisome?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question. She always asks very insightful questions.

It is nice to stand up for the dogs who are trained to defend us and it is nice to protect them.

However, the government refuses to conduct an inquiry when over a thousand women have been murdered or gone missing in Canada. That is a double standard.

We are all in favour of this bill, which seeks to protect dogs and punish those who attack them. Through anthropomorphism, these dogs become our friends and members of our family because we love them.

However, if we are being rational, there are more important matters we should be dealing with, such as the issue of the missing and murdered aboriginal women in Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today' order paper.

The House resumed from October 7, 2014, consideration of the motion that Bill S-218, An Act respecting National Fiddling Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

National Fiddling Day Act

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am excited and honoured to speak about a bill that originated in the Senate. However, it would have been nice if it had originated in the House. What is Bill S-218, An Act respecting National Fiddling Day, all about?

In Quebec and eastern Canada, fiddling is heard in the winter. It warms hearts, brightens people's lives and makes them dance and sing. Why is the fiddle played in the winter? It is likely a result of long-standing tradition and culture. Our ancestors played the fiddle to bring this sound, warmth and joy to family gatherings. We would gather in the living room for a party, for example, and my uncle Gilles and aunt Rosane would dance while my grandfather played the fiddle. That was how we did things at home in Quebec.

Unfortunately, this tradition has almost been lost because the population is aging, of course. Other factors may also be at play, such the fast pace of life. Everyone is running after their dog and having trouble making ends meet. Perhaps that has something to do with it.

In my former career, I was a sound technician and producer. Over the years, church basements became empty. That is where amateur shows and concerts used to take place. They then moved to agricultural fairs and carnivals in the regions.

However, for lack of an operating budget, the organizers of these events had to abandon the tradition of bringing people together, not only as part of winter activities but also as part of community celebrations. The last show that I produced or attended where I grew up in Asbestos, Windsor, in the Eastern Townships, was in the early 1990s. After that, there were practically no more shows. That type of thing is becoming increasingly rare in Quebec.

Despite all of that, the next generation of musicians have taken over. Some groups continue to carry on that tradition by playing more traditional music. There has therefore been a small resurgence. Alain Lamontagne is the true inheritor of this tradition. He travels across Canada with his fiddle and his merry band to carry on the tradition of call and response songs and joie de vivre. Fiddling helped us keep that tradition alive at celebrations and later at community events and industrial fairs. These types of gatherings do not really happen anymore because of a lack of funding and so this type of music is, unfortunately, not played as often. I say unfortunately because it is a tradition that is being lost.

Close to where I lived, there was a national flag carrier, Ti-Blanc Richard, father of Michèle Richard. He proudly carried on that tradition for years. He and Louis Bilodeau, a local television host, kept the tradition alive with La Soirée canadienne. La Soirée canadienne was about reviving traditions. It disappeared as well.

Unfortunately, both men died many years ago, but they kept alive the joyous Québécois tradition of gathering to celebrate and sing call-and-response songs. It was amusing to watch my uncle take out his dentures and start playing the fiddle.

I do not know why he took out his dentures. Maybe he got so excited that he was afraid his dentures would pop out and hit my aunt.

Those are lasting memories. Seeking to perpetuate those traditions is a good thing. However, the NDP would have liked to see a little more attention paid to culture in general, to several aspects of culture and to investments in culture. I mentioned regional exhibitions and fairs. Since there is no money, we can no longer carry on these artistic traditions.

Music has an incredible impact on community life. There are all kinds of art forms, but today we will be talking mostly about music. I am a rock musician myself—yes, I have long hair, I am a rocker, a guitarist, but I am still open to other styles. When I hear traditional fiddling, it almost makes me cry because it brings back memories. I will not reveal my age, but those are old memories, memories of the days when the whole family would get together, have fun and talk about everything under the sun. We talked about politics. Back then, it was just blue and red, but now orange is in the mix. That makes me happy.

I would have liked such a day to be in the winter. It would have brought back memories for a lot of people. I think having it in May is somewhat questionable, but that is just my personal opinion. Everyone has an opinion on how the artistic community is funded, managed and subsidized at this time. Some people say artists are getting to many subsidies. Too many subsidies for artists? Some countries subsidize their heritage 100%. This means that mechanisms and structures are put in place to ensure that some traditions are perpetuated, including crafts, traditional singing, painting and all forms of art.

In Canada, we often forget the important contributions made by artists across the country. To understand Canada from coast to coast to coast, we need look no further than its culture. Whether we are talking about first nations, Newfoundlanders, Albertans or Quebeckers, we look at their traditions, what they do to celebrate, to have fun. This can be found in the arts, in artistic expression and the form it takes.

If we do not provide the necessary framework for developing and carrying on these traditions, they will be lost. We will lose part of our identity. This is an integral part of who we are. It is so important for everyone from coast to coast, for first nations and immigrants. Other ethnic groups come here and carry on their culture. Why abandon all this? Everyone has the right to practise their art, and that is the environment in which we we should live and socialize and develop our relationships between men and women, between nations, between first nations, between Canadians from coast to coast. It is extremely important.

As I said, this brings back memories and calls to mind a warm and traditional atmosphere that deserves to be carried on. Although the NDP and I are completely on board with Bill S-218, again, to me the fiddle is something we hear during the holidays or in winter. It warms our spirits as we sit around a good campfire.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of question period.

I misspoke when I said the government had returned $7.5 million to the treasury last year from FedNor. What I really meant to say was that $11 million has been returned over the last four years, along with a $30 million cut to the FedNor budget.

I apologize to the minister for my lack of mathematical skills.