House of Commons Hansard #151 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was bills.
The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, the idea behind Bill C-35—protecting service and law enforcement animals—is a good one.
The NDP is in favour of studying the bill because law enforcement animals are often injured by criminals who could have injured a police officer. Quite often, a police dog is stabbed or shot instead of the police officer. If the criminal had done the same thing to an officer, he would be accused of attempted murder of a police officer. However, since the individual shot at a law enforcement animal, the line of thinking seems to be that he was just shooting at an animal, which is not the same thing. That is why we need more specific protection for these animals.
Service animals are also becoming more common in society. I am not just talking about guide dogs for the blind. For instance, therapy animals give autistic children contact with the real world. Clearly, these animals are not just stray dogs. They may become the eyes of a blind person or the opportunity for an autistic child to communicate and connect with society as a whole. For these reasons, these animals need very specific protections.
Hurting any animal for fun, deliberately and unnecessarily, is terrible, cruel and mean. We should not tolerate that type of behaviour in our society. However, we need to recognize that the harm caused to our society in general when a service or law enforcement animal is injured is a more significant crime.
Personally, I like service dogs. I am always tempted to pet guide dogs whenever I see them. I know you must never do so, but I am always tempted. I almost always have some chocolate in my pockets. Unfortunately, the member for Terrebonne—Blainville takes them from me, which is good for me and works for her. However, I could easily see myself giving a chocolate to a police dog or horse. The police officer might not be okay with that, but I would really like to do that. I adore animals and would never hurt them.
It is important to discuss this bill in committee with experts and with people in these situations, so they can tell us when it is really important to give these animals special protection in the Criminal Code. We need to have this discussion, which is especially important now because these animals are being used more and more. Unfortunately, some terrorist attacks have been committed using explosives. Sniffer dogs are one of the primary resources used to protect the public from these attacks with explosives.
These animals can also help with certain social phenomena, such as children with autism. We want to reintegrate these children into society, and service dogs are being used more and more to help with this. They are also being called upon more and more to help seniors. There will be many such animals, and they will become more and more helpful. Depriving someone who needs the assistance of a service animal is appalling. That is a serious crime. Attacking someone's animal is the same as attacking the person, since the animal is like an extension of the person, helping them with their senses or their mobility.
Clearly, then, yes, it is important to protect these animals, but as usual, the NDP has a few concerns regarding the minimum penalties. This will be discussed in committee.
I have the sinking feeling that the government is not listening to the Supreme Court when it renders decisions or to the great legal minds when they say that minimum sentences do not work. We should let the judges do their jobs and not try to give them so little discretion that they feel uncomfortable.
All of the courts, including the Supreme Court, have rendered decisions before. I am thinking, for example, of the minimum sentence for possessing a prohibited weapon. Let us look at one of the cases on which a judge ruled. An individual went to visit friends and they were a bit drunk. They were having fun. One of them pulled out an illegal revolver and began playing around with it. Another friend filmed the whole thing on his telephone. The person who was holding the weapon committed a criminal offence. He was charged and faced five years in prison because that is the minimum sentence.
The judge said that it was clear that this person was not particularly bright, and everyone can agree that what he did was not a good idea. However, putting an individual in prison for five years because he played around with an illegal revolver at a friend's home does not make sense.
The judge said that he was not going to take into account the Criminal Code provisions dealing with possession of a prohibited firearm. I am sorry, but he was right. Imagine putting someone in prison for doing something stupid for 15 seconds. That person did not threaten anyone with a firearm and did not commit armed robbery. He simply held a firearm when he was a bit drunk at a party and was filmed doing so.
One of my colleagues from British Columbia was saying that a minimum sentence should be imposed for kidnapping a minor. We want to protect children and doing so is a good thing. However, he proposed a rather harsh prison sentence, and that could cause problems.
A young man who is 18 years old and therefore considered an adult has a 16-year-old girlfriend and they break up. He is not happy. He wants to talk to her, so he takes her by the arm and drags her to his car. That becomes kidnapping because it involves an act of violence. He dragged her to the car by force. Clearly, this young man has problems and needs to change his behaviour. He completely deserves to get a strict talking to by a judge.
Still, do insensitivity and boorish conduct merit 15 years in prison? If a young man, just 18 years old, snaps and does something stupid like this, should he be sent to jail for 15 years? That does not make sense. The punishment has to fit the crime.
That is why we are against minimum sentences. We have to let judges judge. They are the ones who hear all of the information about the case and every possible defence.
If a young man kidnaps his girlfriend because he wants to force her to listen to him, not a lot can be said in his defence. However, he might say that he is in university and will do volunteer work. He might ask for a lesser sentence so that his whole life does not end up going down the drain because of that one time he did the stupidest thing imaginable. That kind of behaviour does not deserve the social stigma associated with a disproportionate prison sentence.
We have every reason to send this bill to committee, where members can listen to what the expert witnesses have to say. One of these days, the government will have to listen to the message judges have been sending them about how displeased they are with minimum sentences. The government will have to listen to that message, pay attention and act accordingly.
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time understanding the NDP sense of justice when it comes to sentencing for crimes that are committed.
The NDP seems to blame the government. In fact, it is because sentences from the judges who sit on the benches, in so many cases, do not reflect the severity of the crime. I will give a good example, and I know this one personally.
Up until the year 2000, the sentence for killing while impaired was 0 to 14 years. The sentences given were always in the one- to three-year range. That was expanded to zero to life in prison, where factors were present. The average sentence given is still one to three years. No matter how many times someone has been convicted or suspended, if they are out driving and kill someone, they are still getting the same sentences.
Something is not being addressed here.
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by the member's remarks because self-induced intoxication is not a defence. If a person gets himself intoxicated and kills someone, that is premeditated murder punishable by life in prison. The minimum sentence is 25 years, which means he is condemned to life and will spend 25 years in jail.
I do not know that particular case, but self-induced intoxication is not an acceptable defence. The Supreme Court stated as much in the case of a man who got himself intoxicated and raped an 88-year-old woman. Just imagine. In his defence, the individual said that he drank so much he became mentally ill. The insanity plea was rejected. People who deliberately get themselves intoxicated will be found fully responsible for actions they commit while intoxicated. That makes sense.
I do not know the case, and I would be happy to talk about it with the member, but I do know that self-induced intoxication is not an acceptable defence.
Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, for his speech. I have spoken to this government bill, Bill C-35. We have spent several days and hours on it. In the meantime, we have a budget implementation omnibus bill that we have asked the government to split so that we can discuss it in greater detail.
Is the hon. member not a bit concerned about the fact that we are taking so much time to discuss Bill C-35? I am not trying to take away from its importance, but there seems to be an imbalance in the priorities for this country, whether we are talking about the economy, job creation or adequate public services. Right now we are talking about Bill C-35. Could I have the hon. member's comments on this?
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, the problem with omnibus bills is that they contain 20 to 30 statutes. If we could discuss each one, we could support or reject each one. In the case of an omnibus bill, even if there are aspects that we find worthwhile, we are forced to reject them because there are other aspects that we simply cannot support. That is the problem with omnibus bills. They get pushed through far too quickly.
To come back to the bill before us, I would like to see more bills that are better focused. I must say that when I go door to door and I walk with people, it is surprising to me how many people have dogs and cats. Some people even have snakes and lizards as pets. Companion animals are important. We will listen to the criticisms and we will respond to them.
The problem is not that we are spending too much time on this bill. The problem is that we do not spend a reasonable amount of time on the omnibus bills. In fact, far too often what happens in the House is that the government imposes closure. That means we have to vote in a hurry on 30 or so statutes that are poorly cobbled together in a single bill.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, as always, to stand in the House to represent the people of Timmins and the James Bay region as we deal with this bill, Bill C-35, Quanto's law. The bill would bring in mandatory minimum sentences for people who are mean to police dogs.
We have spent a lot of time in this House talking about police dogs, and we have seen the government members sit together and get very teary-eyed when they talk about the treatment of police dogs.
It is seven years almost to day that we stood in this House on another motion, Jordan's principle, which passed on December 7, 2007. It was named after Jordan River Anderson from the Norway House Cree first nation, a young child who had never been able to go home because of his complex medical needs. The federal government refused to pay for his health coverage unless he was in a foster care situation.
Jordan's principle is that all children in Canada, regardless of their race, have a right to equitable health care. The House of Commons stood up, just as it will probably stand up on Quanto's law, and voted for Jordan's principle, and then nothing happened.
When I was thinking about the bill on police dogs, I thought of Sergeant John O'Donovan of the Winnipeg Police who, on August 17, 2014, found the body of Tina Fontaine in the Red River. He told the media, “She's a child. This is a child that's been murdered. Society would be horrified if we found a litter of kittens or pups in the river in this condition. This is a child.”.
It says something. This is nothing against dogs and cats; I have dogs and cats at home. However, when a police officer has to point out that a first nation child who was murdered and dumped in a river would have received more attention if she had been a litter of puppies, it says something.
I want to just compare the values that we are seeing in this House, in terms of mandatory minimum sentences.
I would like to read from draft No. 11, dated November 21, 2012. It is entitled “Jordan's Principle, Case Conferencing to Case Resolution, Federal/Provincial Intake Form”. It is tab 420 in the factum of evidence in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on first nation child services that are being denied by the federal government.
The quote is the following:
Previously healthy 4 year old First Nation Child suffered cardiac arrest and anoxic brain injury while undergoing routine dental extraction. The child is totally dependent for all activities of daily living and requires significant medical and equipment before she can be discharged from [health services].
The items that it said she needs are a Hill-Rom bed for a child, a specialized stroller, a mattress to prevent skin breakdown, a trapeze bar, a portable lift, a bath frame, a Hoyer lift. That is what is needed to look after this child and give her mother the support.
There were over a dozen child welfare agencies looking at what needed to be done to get this child back with her family.
When it came to the bed, the bed that would keep her from suffocating, the specialized bed she needed, the non-insured health benefits of Health Canada said absolutely not; they were not paying for a bed for a child who might suffocate otherwise.
We see in the notes that it was the director of the hospital who had to pay out of his pocket for this child to get a bed because the government had written into its policy that providing that child with a life-saving bed was not a priority.
Yet, here we are today talking about mandatory minimum sentences if we are mean to a police dog.
I would like to read from another report, entitled “Jordan's Principle, Dispute Resolution”, dated May 22, 2009. It is tab 320 in the factum of evidence that has been brought forward against the federal government:
A child with multiple disabilities and/or complex medical needs requires a wheelchair and stroller and requires that a lift and tracking device be installed in his/her family home. [Health Canada] will provide children with only one item every five years. If the item is a wheelchair, [non-insured health benefits] supports the provision of manual wheelchairs only, which must be fitted with special seating inserts in order to accommodate small children.
They would not even pay for an electric wheelchair for a completely incapacitated child. It is in the policy.
Yet, here we are talking about mandatory minimum sentences for people being mean to police dogs.
I will read from an internal government report from British Columbia, INAC and Health Canada, Gaps in Delivery Services to First Nation Children in B.C., dated November 6, 2009, which states:
More and more, dentists and other care providers refuse to deal with Health Canada directly because of very long delays in receiving payment....
There is no funding for basic dental care, even in emergency situations; no money for “basic equipment, e.g. hospital bed”. We have already talked about the fact that it will not pay for hospital beds for children: “too bad, so sad”.
There is no funding for special diets for children who cannot eat solid foods, and no funding so that the guardian can travel with a child to a special needs appointment.
I am not making this up. These are in the tabs. Costs for medications are not approved by the federal government, even though the pediatricians prescribe the medication for the child's condition.
It states:
Children in care are not accessing Mental Health services.... If these children cannot get necessary mental health service, [including assessment for fetal alcohol syndrome], they are unable to access [other education programs].
I will point out that in my region of Treaty 9, the issue of not being able to access mental health services has left us with horrific levels of suicide. If children or young people come forward to say that they are depressed or suicidal, the only option is to put them into foster care and take them away from their community. Any other community would provide counselling, but that is not allowed because it is not in the policy. Yet, we have mandatory minimum sentences being discussed today for being mean to police dogs.
I would like to talk about this idea of mandatory minimum sentences.
In the New Brunswick region, we have an internal document entitled “Education and Social Development Programs and Partnerships”, dated November 2012, tab 298.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
Order, please. The member for Oxford is rising on a point of order.
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Speaker, there has to be some relevance to the bill before the House. This member has been going on about issues that have nothing to do with Bill C-35, Quanto's law. It is certainly high time that he got back to the bill.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
The member for Oxford raises the issue of relevance. I have listened carefully to the member for Timmins-James Bay. I have heard him make reference to the bill that is before the House, but he is talking about other matters that may be related to it. It is the opinion of the Chair that the member has not strayed beyond the normal practice of relevance to this point. However, the Chair is waiting to hear the member bring this back to the matter that is specifically before the House.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues get upset any time that we talk about first nation children or first nation victims in the House. However, I was pointing out, as the member stood up, that I was referring to Bill C-35 and the six-month minimum sentence for abuse of police dogs, and I was comparing this to other government policy. In Bill C-35, we are being asked to talk about invoking minimum sentences for the mistreatment of police dogs, and yet, over on that side, the mistreatment of first nation children under their watch is “too bad, so sad”.
A New Brunswick region internal document entitled, “Education and Social Development Programs and Partnership”, dated November 12, 2012, warns in two sections of the report of the risks, including death to children, through underfunded child welfare programs. It states:
...the continuance of inadequate service delivery in the Agency could lead to exposure of First Nations children to serious harm. [...]
[Further], there would be a significant backlash if a child died as a result of federal funding not being available....
I have seen the House in this last session of Parliament turn into a Potemkin democracy. Important issues of the day are not allowed to be discussed, or they are pushed through in omnibus legislation. However, we have all the time under the sun to talk about the mistreatment of police dogs. I would never support the mistreatment of a dog or cat—I have had dogs and cats my whole life—but I see internal documents that say the government knows that children are at risk of death because of its deliberate underfunding, and the government puts in writing that it would absolutely not give children basic health care and beds that children need so they do not die.
Let us talk about minimum sentences. How about some minimum sentences for the people who have the fiduciary responsibility to look after children under their watch and who leave them with no support? The number of children who have been lost, given up, suffered death, committed suicide, is appalling.
I will go back to the opening statement that I made, from Sergeant O'Donovan of the Winnipeg Police when he found the body of Tina Fontaine. She was an innocent child who had been taken out of her family and put in child welfare and then lost in the system. He said if it were a litter of puppies or kittens, society would be appalled.
We have seen a response from the federal government. Its response was to go after Cindy Blackstock, who brought forward the Human Rights Tribunal case. Its response was to spy on her, to follow her, to break the law in trying to get evidence on her, and to fight these issues all the way through the Human Rights Tribunal.
I will end my speech on this one last case of Pictou Landing, Maurina Beadle, whose son suffered from cerebral palsy, hydrocephalus, and autism. The family fought all the way to the Federal Court of Appeal to get home care for this child, and the government wanted the family to pay legal costs. That is the kind of situation we are dealing with in the House today.
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I found his point of view refreshing.
I think we need to compare Bill C-35, Quanto's law, to other bills and the penalties being imposed in other bills. Is today's bill fair compared to others?
Some bills have gone too far. For some time now, it has been common to see court challenges of the penalties the House of Commons imposes in bills. The government must then rewrite the bills because they often go too far. The courts have been clear about this.
In many cases, the government should perhaps take time to consider and debate bills in committee and hear from experts. This government often does not listen. That is why I think the points my colleague raised were worthwhile and very interesting.
I would like him to comment on the time we are spending on this bill compared to the time we have spent on other bills. Budget implementation bills have been sped through, yet we are taking a lot of time to study bills that have a very narrow scope. Could he speak to that?
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question. We are in Parliament to review legislation and to assure the people of Canada that any bills that are brought forward and become law have been fully reviewed, so that we understand if there are problems. Whatever bills do, they can create unintended consequences.
Yet under the current government, we see that serious pieces of legislation are blown through. There is time allocation and debate is cut down so that review is not given. We have had more and more bills rejected by the Supreme Court, bills that are unconstitutional, and even had bills turned back in the Senate, because they are obviously failures. We could spend all day, weeks and months, on a bill about being mean to police dogs.
I would like to point out to my colleague the example of the stripping of the navigable waters act. Right across Canada there was no review of that. That was so the Conservatives could get the pipelines through. Now we see in Ontario and Quebec, the push-back on Energy East. If the government had done this in a proper manner and reassured the public, there might not be this kind of resistance we are seeing in Burnaby to the northern gateway pipeline and that we are seeing to Energy East.
The lack of due diligence on these bills has huge implications for development in this country.
Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is really with a great deal of disbelief that I listened to the members opposite complaining about how there is inadequate time to debate bills, and yet when given the opportunity to debate this bill, Quanto's law, the member opposite does not even speak about it. I listened very carefully to his comments and I waited for him to talk about the sections of the bill that he liked or did not like. Instead, all I heard him talk about were other issues.
Quite frankly, I think this contributes to a lot of the disillusionment across the land, when people tune in and see these kinds of antics. When they see a member such as the member opposite trying to distract people and discussion from the matter at hand and see him wasting time talking about unrelated issues rather than addressing the bill before us, people get cynical about what goes on in this place.
I would be interested to see if the member could stand on his feet and just for 30 seconds talk about two or three provisions of Quanto's law.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, is it “antics” to talk about Tina Fontaine's body being found in the Red River? However, I guess because she was an indigenous child, to speak about the mistreatment of aboriginal children in the House the Conservatives think is “antics”. They have absolutely zero interest.
The Conservatives would rather we talk about the treatment of police dogs because they have zero interest in the fact that, under their watch, children are being denied wheelchairs. They are being denied wheelchairs because there are two sets of laws in this country: one for the rich old white people and another for the aboriginal children who are being denied hospital beds, denied access to dental treatment, denied access to medical services. The Conservatives say that when we raise issues of indigenous rights, it is an antic. Damn right.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
Order, please. Before we resume debate, the Chair would like to clarify for all members the issue of relevance. There is a responsibility for members to address the matter that is before the House at any time. As has been said many times from this chair, a significant amount of latitude is given to members in how they do that, including referencing other pieces of legislation or previous pieces of legislation.
Having said that, this is not licence for members to say “We have this matter before the House today, but I think we should be talking about another matter”, and then talking exclusively about that. I just would urge all hon. members to keep the spirit of the principle of relevance central to their speechmaking, and for members to be tolerant of their colleagues who may choose a detour or a circuitous route to get to the point. Having said that, that only makes sense if and when the member actually does come to the point. That is how that is done.
This morning, this issue has been raised a couple of times, but I just want to remind all hon. members that the speech device of saying that that “We are talking about A, but I think we should be talking about B” and then talking about B ad nauseam, regardless of how the member may personally feel about issue B, is not really in the spirit of relevance. With that, I anticipate that we will be able to carry forward with the debate today.
The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, on a point of order.
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I took a lot of exception to the member's use of the term “rich old white people”. It was the disdain in his voice when he uttered that comment. He may not like rich people and he may not like old people, but the House of Commons is no place for him to voice his disdain for that group. Parliament represents rich people and old people. If they happen to be one and the same, maybe they worked for it. That member should be ashamed of himself for using that term in such a derogatory fashion and should apologize.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, some people might consider me a rich old white guy. If I said anything derogatory, I retract it. The fact is that there are two laws and indigenous children do not seem to matter to the government. I will retract any unnecessary comments.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
Thank you. The Chair appreciates that from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
In terms of the initial point of order raised, the Standing Orders also ask hon. members to conduct themselves in such a way in this place that they do not cause disruption. There are times when members are quite passionate about what they say and they say it in such a way that it incites passion
Again, I would urge members to be cautious in their choice of words and the way they make their points, including when they are speaking about matters they are very passionate about.
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to sincerely thank you for the reminder you just gave us.
I would like to begin by saying that, despite the comparisons that were just being made between the government's treatment of aboriginal children and the bill before us, it is important to note that the NDP condemns all forms of animal cruelty. We have long defended that position, and the legislation and bills we have introduced clearly demonstrate that.
It has been said before, but I will say it again: every time this government introduces a bill, the devil is often in the details. I will come back to that in my speech.
We are supporting Bill C-35. I want to reiterate that as well. We feel it is important, as the official opposition, that this be bill passed at second reading so that it can be sent to committee for study. We need to get expert opinions on some of the provisions and proposals in this bill. Once again, with the Conservatives, the devil is in the details. That said, the bill itself is commendable, and that needs to be said.
I am a Cree from Bay James, in northern Quebec. In fact, I come from the last generation of northern Quebec Cree who were born in the forest, in a tent, and who used sled dogs to survive. I remember that when I was young, growing up, we made long treks with our sled dogs.
I remember that after four hours with dogs that had pulled several sleds—there was more than one, since we were a large family— we would stop to take a break and have a little something to eat, and I was tasked with letting the dogs loose. It was the first thing that needed to be done because it was a sign of respect to take the dogs out of their harnesses and feed them first, before we had even had tea and food. That is my culture. I simply wanted to share it with the House.
Speaking of sled dogs, it is also important to remember that according to the Inuit, in the 1950s and 1960s, the RCMP was ordered to slaughter all of the sled dogs in the Arctic and the far north, including in part of my riding, Nunavik. They slaughtered the Inuit's sled dogs so they could force the people into communities to live by their rules.
In 2011, the Government of Quebec wisely recognized the impact of those government actions. It apologized to the Inuit of Nunavik. I know that in 2006, there was a report by Parliament and the RCMP on that. However, they absolved themselves of all responsibility in their own review.
Earlier, I talked about how it is important for this bill to go to committee so that the experts can have a look at it.
I said that because the government is once again trying to impose six-month-long consecutive mandatory minimum sentences for crimes under Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals). We think this bill has to go to committee for study so that experts can tell us, for example, how the mandatory minimum sentences contradict various rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I would like to share two examples. The first is from Gladue. I am sure everyone remembers that important 1999 Supreme Court decision. It mentioned part XXIII of the Criminal Code, which lays out the purpose and basic principles of sentencing as well as the factors judges must take into account in determining an appropriate sentence for an offender. This was an important case with respect to sentencing. We have to consider rulings like these because they require judges to take certain factors into account in sentencing, particularly for aboriginal people.
I would like to read an excerpt from the1999 ruling in the Gladue case. The Supreme Court said that subparagraph 718.2(e):
...requires sentencing judges to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment and to pay particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. The provision is not simply a codification of existing jurisprudence. It is remedial in nature. Its purpose is to ameliorate the serious problem of overrepresentation of aboriginal people in prisons, and to encourage sentencing judges to have recourse to a restorative approach to sentencing.
I am not an expert in sentencing or in the Criminal Code, but I do know a little about the laws of this country, especially Supreme Court decisions, which I take the time to read. Mandatory minimum sentences go against some of the orders handed down from the highest court in the land. It is important to take that into consideration when discussing mandatory minimum sentences.
I will now give the second example, which I have already quoted in the House in another debate on missing and murdered aboriginal women. Today I will again quote from the decision in this important case dealing with sentencing. This also speaks to the importance of inviting experts to tell us how this bill flies in the face of some Supreme Court rulings. Here is what the Supreme Court said in that case, and I will conclude on this point:
When sentencing an Aboriginal offender, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translate...for Aboriginal peoples.
The Supreme Court is telling us to go in one direction, but some of the government's bills seem to go in the opposite direction. That is why I believe this bill should be sent to committee for further study.
Hélène LeBlanc NDP LaSalle—Émard, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and especially for reminding us of the importance of the different services, as noted in the bill, that animals such as dogs can provide. He also gave a very interesting example about first nations customs and the respect that the first nations have for working dogs, if I can put it that way.
However, I would like to have his views on the amount of time we are spending on discussing this bill, when there are so many other issues to consider. He raised a few of those issues, including the treatment of first nations, the treatment of first nations children, or other topics related to our economy.
I would like the hon. member to say a few words about that.
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from LaSalle—Émard for her very important question. In the House, the nature of our work is to address all the issues before us.
Mr. Speaker, as you have seen, I heeded your reminder to deal directly with the issue that was before us today, but I thank the hon. member. She is right.
Yesterday, I was in Montreal standing before roughly 300 people to celebrate the graduation of Cree firefighters who had just obtained their internationally recognized certification. Most of them reminded me of what the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard just said. Indeed, there are a lot of issues before us. For Canada's aboriginal peoples alone, there are a great many challenges that remain to be addressed in Canada's aboriginal communities in 2014. I think it is unfortunate that we are not spending more time on aboriginal peoples, the first peoples of this country.
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who was quite humble about his legal knowledge. I very much appreciate his experience, and not just in terms of legal issues and negotiations. I am not here to list his resumé, but he is certainly an impressive colleague to have.
He spoke about why Supreme Court rulings are important and how they affect the way we must interpret laws and enforce them.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on one point. Regarding bills like this one, or private members' bills, how has the government applied Supreme Court rulings, in particular with respect to minimum penalties?
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. The bills we have been passing here, under this Conservative government, are increasingly being struck down by the courts and by the Supreme Court. I do not need to remind members of what has happened in some very recent cases. Once again, we need to remember that as parliamentarians, we have a duty to consider the constitutionality of the bills before us.
Pursuant to section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice has a duty to verify whether the bills introduced in the House are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for example. This also applies to issues associated with aboriginal rights.
I also want to remind members that when we impose minimum penalties in bills, as is the case here, we seem to forget that this often has consequences on both the judicial system and the prison system. We cannot forget that. As it seemed to be the case at one point, the government only seems to want to build prisons in this country, when we should be building houses in first nations communities.
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by commending you, because that does not happen very often in this place. Your reminder about relevance in reference to the speech that was just given by the member for Timmins—James Bay is very important.
Oftentimes in this place, Mr. Speaker, each one of us has aspects of our representation about which we are very passionate. In the case of the member for Timmins—James Bay and the first nations people who are in his riding, he is very concerned. The striking comment from the police officer when they found that young aboriginal woman's body and when he compared that to the fact that Canadians would be more concerned about puppies, that was of course a flashpoint for my friend from Timmins—James Bay.
I know you were attentive, Mr. Speaker, because you allowed that debate to go perhaps a little long, straying away and then bringing it back with his comments. I appreciate the fact that you had the understanding of the passion, and I just want to commend you for that. That is not something that is usually done in this place.
I think the other reason for the frustration level for members on this side of the House is not that we are not supportive of bills and legislation to protect animals and service animals like the police or RCMP dogs, horses, or other animals. In fact the NDP has supported bills in this House before. I recall Bill C-232 and Bill C-592.
It is the fact that here we are, having a fulsome debate on this, which is more than reasonable, following times when we have had far more complicated legislation before the House and have had time allocation forced on us, more than 80 times now by my reckoning. Once in a while that level of frustration will percolate to the top in the comments we are making.
I can understand my friend, the member for Timmins—James Bay, expressing those concerns earlier.
I also want to commend the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, the critic for the NDP, who reviewed Bill C-35, Quanto's law, for us and offered her recommendations and thoughts.
I might be able to bring a kind of unique perspective to this debate. In 1996, I was putting together, at that time, the largest civil demonstration in the history of our country in Hamilton. It was a protest against the Conservative government of Mike Harris at the time. We wound up with 105,000 people on the streets of Hamilton.
The point I wanted to make is that I had 28 years in the labour movement and, from time to time, either on picket lines or in various demonstrations, I have observed people who are taking part who quite often were provocateurs outside of the activists who had put together the particular event. I have seen on occasion where they had plans, for instance, to injure the horses of police officers with screwdrivers and implements like that.
I understand that when we are dealing with the use of service dogs and horses in crowd control in those circumstances, sometimes there are people who are very extreme.
In our case in Hamilton in 1996, we met with police services and the fire service, and I had individuals in charge of our security. We had 500 of our own marshals. At that particular event, we had about 40 troublemakers—I will not call them activists—who came with the intent of disrupting the event. We were able to discuss the matter with them and with our own marshals and limit their activities to the point where they peacefully demonstrated.
In the end, we can see the importance of having some kind of reaction to the abuse or killing of police service animals. We are in support of this bill going to committee. We do have some problems with the assignment of actual penalties, where the judge does not get to make the decisions. We believe we put our judges in courts to guide us and lead us in the law and to make those appropriate decisions.