Debates of June 11th, 2015

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

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honoured to add my voice in support of Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, also known as Quanto's law. This is yet another piece of legislation that our government has introduced with the goal of making Canadian communities safer. In this case, the focus of the legislation is on deterring persons from harming law enforcement animals or other service animals as well as from assaulting law enforcement officers.

From the outset, there has been broad support in principle in this House and across the land for this legislation. What concerns there may have been with regard to one aspect of this proposed legislation, the mandatory minimum penalty of six months' imprisonment for the killing of a law enforcement animal that was assisting a law enforcement officer in carrying out his or her duties when that offence is prosecuted by way of indictment, have, I believe, been addressed in the course of the justice committee's study on the bill.

Before I go further, I want to express my appreciation to all the witnesses who appeared before the justice committee and provided their helpful perspectives on the legislation. It is the personal experiences and expertise they share with parliamentary committees that help us to better understand the objectives of proposed legislation and to sometimes improve it through amendments.

The most common type of law enforcement animal in use today is probably a police dog. Police dogs are specifically trained to assist police and other law enforcement personnel in their work, such as searching for drugs and explosives, searching for lost people, looking for crime scene evidence, and protecting their handlers. Police dogs must remember several hand and verbal commands. The most commonly used breed is the German shepherd.

In the United States, anyone who kills a federal law enforcement animal will face fines and up to 10 years in prison. Similar statutes exist to protect police animals from malicious injury in every one of the states in the United States except South Dakota.

It is the sad truth that Quanto's law could have been named in honour of several other police dogs that have been killed in the line of duty. The Canadian Police Canine Association maintains a valour row on its website. Quanto's story is there, as are accounts of how 10 other law enforcement dogs were killed in the line of duty between 1965 and Quanto's death in 2013.

However, as the association's president admitted before the justice committee, the valour row does not present a complete picture; it includes only those animals that have been brought to the association's attention.

Bill C-35 recognizes and honours the important contribution that police dogs such as Quanto make to law enforcement. However, Bill C-35 also acknowledges the very important role that other service animals play. Through the work of the justice committee, we are more aware of the invaluable assistance that service animals provide to persons with disabilities. I am pleased that the bill would recognize the importance of other service animals. Service animals are trained to assist in performing some of the functions and tasks that persons with disabilities cannot perform for themselves. There are several different kinds of service dogs, including guide dogs, hearing dogs, mobility dogs, seizure alert/response dogs, psychiatric service dogs, and autism dogs.

I suspect that the type of service animal with which most people are familiar are Seeing Eye dogs used by individuals who are blind or have low vision. However, there are other types of service animals that assist persons with other kinds of disabilities in their day-to-day activities. These animals require the same type of recognition and the same type of protection from persons who would wilfully cause them harm.

A psychiatric service animal is a dog that is individually trained for people with an emotional or psychiatric disability so severe that it substantially limits their ability to perform at least one major life task. Psychiatric service dogs would be considered service animals under Bill C-35.

Proposed subsection 445.01(1) would create a new Criminal Code offence that would be distinct from the general offence of cruelty to animals in section 445 of the Criminal Code.

In terms of how this new offence would improve the protection of law enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals over the protection offered under the existing animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code, I would note that the enhancement is chiefly about sentencing.

While section 445 and proposed section 445.01 share the same maximum penalties whether the crown proceeds by way of indictment or by way of summary conviction, proposed new section 718.03 of the Criminal Code would require the courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence as sentencing objectives in respect of the new offence described in subsection 445.01(1).

While courts are required to impose a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, this amendment would have a significant impact on the sentence imposed by the court. It is worth noting that courts are currently required to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence as sentencing objectives in regard to assaults committed against peace officers or other justice system participants.

Another important aspect of Bill C-35 is its proposal regarding the sentencing of persons convicted of committing any type of assault on a law enforcement officer, whether it is a common assault, an assault causing bodily harm, an assault with a weapon or an aggravated assault. It would require that a sentence imposed on the offender convicted of having committed such offence be served consecutively to any other sentence that might be imposed on the offender, arising out of the same event or series of events.

For example, there is a report of a break and enter. As the police arrive a suspect is seen running away from the house. A police officer engages in a foot chase with the fleeing suspect. The officer quickly catches up to the suspect and tackles him. The suspect pulls a knife, stabs the officer, wounds him and endangers his life. The officer is taken to the hospital and thankfully survives. Later, the offender is convicted of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, pursuant to 270.02 of the Criminal Code. In addition to being convicted of breaking and entering into a dwelling house contrary to section 348, in such a case the proposed amendment would require the sentence imposed for the aggravated assault to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed for the break and enter.

In closing, Bill C-35 would be a fitting legacy for Quanto. It is my view that the spotlight that has been placed on the intentional killing or infliction of harm on law enforcement animals as well as service animals will not soon be forgotten. By enhancing the protection afforded to these working animals we would also be making Canada a safer place for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Although the bill is commendable in itself, there are still some issues. My colleague spoke about some service animals that do not belong to a law enforcement agency or government agency. In committee we heard about private service animals. However, that is unfortunately not reflected in the bill before us.

In the speeches made today we heard about the fact that private service animals are just as dear and precious to their owners as animals that provide a service for government institutions.

How does the member explain this omission from the bill, especially considering the fact that this issue came up in parliamentary committee?

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree that service animals are certainly very important for many people.

We do have a provision. For example, if animals do not fall under the definition of the proposed new offence they would be protected under the existing animal cruelty provisions included in section 445 of the Criminal Code. It provides that anyone who wilfully and without lawful excuse kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures a dog, bird or animal that is not cattle and is kept for lawful purpose, is liable for up to five years' imprisonment when the offence is prosecuted by indictment. Therefore, there are other provisions for other animals as well.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague, the member for London North Centre. She originally talked about some of the crime legislation that has been brought forward for the protection of Canadian citizens, as well as victims.

My question for my colleague is, why is our government introducing the justice for animals service act, known as Quanto's law?

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason we introduced the legislation is it fulfills our commitment made in the 2013 Speech From the Throne. It is to recognize the daily risks taken by police officers and their service animals in their efforts to enforce the law and protect Canadians and communities. The legislation honours Quanto, a police dog stabbed to death while helping apprehend a fleeing suspect in Edmonton. Quanto had four years of decorated service and had participated in more than 100 arrests. It also recognizes the vital role that service animals play, such as guide dogs, in helping persons with disabilities form a better quality of life and lead more independent lives, or animals used by the Canadian Armed Forces.

This keeps Canada safe. The government is committed to ensuring that people who wilfully harm these animals will face the full force of the law.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would comment on a previous question of why not other animals.

Would my colleague agree that in the case of other Criminal Code offences, in offences against a police officer, assaulting a police officer, police officers are human beings? They represent law and order and authority in this country. These service dogs and service animals represent law and authority, and I would suggest that is why we have this law. They are service animals in service of not only the individual but also of their community and their country.

We have also previously heard NDP members talking about mandatory minimum sentences and how Republicans in the United States are reducing their sentences. That is because they are about five times what our mandatory minimum sentences are.

I wonder if my colleague could give some examples of how consecutive sentencing provisions would work.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, consecutive sentences are an important part of the bill.

I will give an example. An RCMP car stops a car the officer suspects is operated by an impaired driver. The driver exits the vehicle and assaults the police officer. The driver is convicted of impaired driving.

Under the existing section 718.02 of the Criminal Code, it requires that a court that imposes a sentence for assault on a police officer to:

...give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.

Under the proposed amendments, the court would be required to order that the sentence imposed for the assault of the RCMP be served consecutively to any term of imprisonment imposed for the impaired driving.

The same thing could be said for a trained police dog involved. If, for example, the perpetrator stabs a police dog, the perpetrator would be charged with injuring the police dog and the sentence would be served consecutively to the sentence for the break and enter, or whatever the scenario was.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak, for the second time, to Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals), also known as Quanto's law.

Quanto was a police dog in Edmonton that was stabbed to death when trying to intercept a fleeing suspect. That was in October 2013. The suspect pleaded guilty to animal cruelty and other offences, including evading police. He was sentenced to 26 months in prison and banned from owning a pet for 25 years. I want to say that this bill is commendable in itself. I think it sends a message to society that it is unacceptable to stab a police dog and that there will be serious consequences. Once again, that is commendable.

However, I want to get back to the topic of minimum sentences, because I think that is a flaw in the bill before us. Unfortunately this flaw was not fixed in parliamentary committee.

Barbara Cartwright of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies appeared before the parliamentary committee. I will quote her testimony, which shows that we need to amend the Criminal Code.

I will quote her in English because she testified in English.

....Brigadier, a different animal, a police horse that was compassionately euthanized after he and his rider, Constable Kevin Bradfield, were struck in a hit and run incident. The driver of the vehicle was charged with dangerous operation of a vehicle causing bodily harm and failing to remain at the scene of an accident. It is believed that he deliberately struck the horse and the rider. Brigadier sustained fatal neck and rib injuries in the accident.

This is a repugnant act that I think would have benefited from the modifications that we have in front of us to send a clear signal that this is precisely the kind of act that this House and our society in general condemns.

This bill applies only to animals working for the state. I will come back to that because it is an important point.

As my colleague said in her speech a few minutes ago, this measure was presented by the government in the 2013 throne speech as we began the second session of the 42nd Parliament. Specifically, the government wants to amend the Criminal Code to create a new offence specifically prohibiting the killing, wounding, poisoning or injuring of trained animals working for law enforcement, people with disabilities or members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

In the 2013 throne speech, the government alluded to private service animals and people with disabilities. Unfortunately, that is not reflected in the bill before us. Government members said that that is already in the Criminal Code. Section 445 of the Criminal Code sets out penalties for animal cruelty. Some provinces, including Quebec, have recently adopted their own penalties for animal cruelty.

I asked this question the last time I gave a speech on this bill, and I am asking it again: If this is already in the Criminal Code, why are we studying a new bill, considering the severity of the penalties?

Section 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines sentencing principles.

From this section we have seen that appeals have been brought before many courts, on a number of occasions and at many levels, specifically challenging the fact that the sentences are inappropriate, that they are cruel and unusual, and that they go beyond what is acceptable in a free and democratic society.

Just in the past 10 minutes I heard one of my Conservative colleagues suggest that authorities in the United States are seriously backtracking on minimum sentences. He thinks this is happening because their mandatory minimum sentencing went too far in the first place.

However, he failed to mention, or perhaps he does not realize, that in Canada, there are many cases before the courts right now, and that over the past few years minimum sentences have been overturned in many cases in Canada.

We should really look at our own jurisprudence to properly understand why minimum sentencing is very problematic for our courts today. In the most recent cases, trial judges have even refused to apply some elements of minimum sentences, because they felt they constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

We have to ask ourselves the following question: when we impose minimum sentences, why do we not trust trial judges, who should be capable of applying the appropriate sentence according to the circumstances?

We are in no position here in Parliament to presume in advance what sentences should be handed down under the circumstances. That is why the trial court is in the best position to hand down the right sentence according to the circumstances.

In French we refer to the lower court judge. I think it is even clearer in English. It is the trial judge. The appeals courts are superior courts, and the Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the land.

Superior court judges do not decide on the facts and the merit of the cases, but determine whether the law has or has not been properly applied. In some cases, the law or certain aspects of the law are overturned. Sentences that have to be imposed under the law are overturned when superior court justices feel comfortable doing so and believe that the sentence is cruel and unusual. It is really up to the trial judge to hand down an appropriate sentence according to the circumstances.

We have to trust our trial court judges because they are capable of handing down a reasonable, fair and appropriate sentence according to the circumstances. When we impose minimum sentences, we are setting aside the role of the trial judge.

I do not understand why the government often, not to say always, focuses on establishing minimum sentences when many experts believe that they will be overturned by the appeal and superior courts.

It seems like Parliament is creating jobs for lawyers, who continue to bill their clients for proceeding with appeal after appeal, and ultimately dealing with an issue that was already, and repeatedly, considered by our courts. I would like to see bills that strike a better balance.

Once again, imposing harsher sentences than those provided for in the Criminal Code is probably commendable. It signals that Parliament considers it unacceptable to attack a law enforcement animal.

In my opinion, sending a very clear message is the right thing to do. By moving to impose harsher sentences, Parliament is expressing, in probably the best way possible, its intention to make it clear that we do not approve and that it is completely unacceptable to attack a law enforcement animal.

However, the minimum sentence is still problematic. I assume that this aspect of the bill will eventually be challenged in court. It will cost the individual in question and the government a lot of money. From the examples that I have seen recently, I seriously doubt that this aspect of the bill will stand up in court. Once again, the government is unfortunately heading for a loss in court. I am wondering why the Conservative government insists on adding minimum sentences when sentencing is the role of the trial judge.

It seems as though the government did not spend a lot of time thinking about private service animals, despite their promise in the 2013 throne speech. The government decided to ignore that aspect and is telling us not to worry because it is already covered by section 445 of the Criminal Code. What is more, I heard the parliamentary secretary saying that we had to respect jurisdictions because privately held service animals fall under provincial jurisdiction. Perhaps I misunderstood, but to my knowledge, the Criminal Code is an area of federal jurisdiction and we have the tools to address that issue.

Let us say that we are infringing on provincial jurisdiction by adopting this minimum sentence. When the guilty parties are given a minimum sentence of six months, they will be sent to a provincial prison at the expense of the provinces.

Once again, the federal government is creating laws and then making the provinces bear the cost and responsibility without any federal assistance. The government is instituting minimum sentences that will cost the federal government nothing but will increase the burden of the provinces, without even consulting the provinces to try to come to an agreement.

The government has done this sort of thing time and time again. The Conservatives like to boast that they want to balance the budget. However, the most recent budget is not really balanced because they helped themselves to $1.4 billion from the employment insurance fund. They simply found another source of revenue and now they would have us believe that the budget is balanced. Meanwhile, what they have done is imposed heavier burdens on poor people in Canada, while the wealthy reap the benefits. That was just an aside.

Let us get back to the bill. The Conservative government has repeatedly downloaded the cost of its bills onto the provinces even though the federal government should bear those costs. Minimum sentences are an excellent example of that. We have seen this over and over in a number of areas, including health, where provincial transfers have been cut. They say they have a $54 billion, 10-year infrastructure program, but last year, the Conservatives spent only about $250 million. Moreover, they took away so many of the eligibility criteria that this has basically turned into another way to transfer the costs to the provinces.

The Conservative government seems to have no qualms about introducing and passing bills with no regard for Canadian taxpayers. It has no problem making them pay, but it would have us believe that the federal government has nothing to do with the fact that provincial income taxes have to go up significantly or their services have to go down significantly to make up for the costs the federal government is forcing them to absorb. That is not a real partnership. A confederation should be a real partnership.

Unfortunately I do not think that is what we have in this country, and the bill before us is a fine example of that. I want to stress once again that the parliamentary secretary is trying to convince us that we cannot help private service animals because that would interfere in a provincial jurisdiction. That is completely untrue. In any case, the government has no problem interfering in other areas of provincial jurisdiction. It makes absolutely no sense that the government would claim today that it cannot interfere in a provincial jurisdiction when it has done so many times.

I want to get back to the bill before us. Those found guilty of such an offence could be sentenced to up to five years in prison, with a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison, as I mentioned earlier. The maximum sentence is therefore five years and the minimum is six months if a law enforcement animal is killed while helping a police officer enforce the law and if the offence is prosecuted by indictment. If a law enforcement animal is wounded or killed in the line of duty, the sentence imposed for this offence would be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the perpetrator.

That is another aspect of minimum sentences that I find difficult to accept. Consecutive mandatory minimum penalties take away the discretion of trial judges, who are the ones in the best position to determine a reasonable sentence according to the circumstances. The goal here is to ensure that society understands that attacking an animal in service to the state is unacceptable. A penalty must be imposed that reflects the circumstances before the court. The judge is the one in the best position to determine the appropriate sentence. If someone is convicted of certain offences and if mandatory minimum penalties are imposed for any other crime that individual is convicted of, a consecutive sentence means that all of these mandatory minimums would be imposed one after the other, and that individual could stay behind bars for a very long time. Consecutive sentences are very rare in Canada. They are much more common in the United States. We must try to avoid that trend here in Canada. We should not be following the U.S. example and start imposing consecutive sentences. People in the United States can now serve sentences of over 100 years. There is no explanation for how the U.S. got to that point. Perhaps they got there by gradually eroding the trial judges' ability to impose reasonable sentences according to the circumstances. We are not doing Canada's justice system any favours by imposing tougher sentences, tougher than what is considered fair and reasonable in a free and democratic society.

The government should reread section 718 of the Criminal Code, which sets out the principles to be upheld in sentencing. The government has gone astray. I do not believe that it realizes that the purpose of sentences is not just to indicate to people that certain activities are unacceptable in society. Sentences are also intended to ensure that the guilty party can be rehabilitated. We want to find ways to help that person reintegrate back into society. As far as I know, putting someone in prison for years and years can teach him to be a better criminal and commit other crimes in the future. Leaving criminals in crime school is not the best way to run our penitentiary system in Canada. That is why section 718 contains a number of sentencing principles.

I believe the bill before us includes some aspects of section 718. However, I think we got off track when it comes to other aspects of that section. I hope that the government will think about that in future bills. The government failed to include private service animals in this bill. Perhaps it is time to introduce a bill to correct that mistake.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank and commend my colleague for his speech.

I agree with what he said about mandatory minimum sentences and the relationship between the federal and provincial governments and the burden this creates. It is clear that the federal government's actions have consequences for the provinces. However, my question has to do with mandatory minimum sentences.

We heard the parliamentary secretary indicate that the government will vigorously defend any constitutional attack on the mandatory minimum sentences contained in this piece of legislation. I would be interested in his reaction to that.

Second, in his critique of the mandatory minimums, there is a discretion retained within the prosecution to proceed summarily and avoid a mandatory minimum, or by indictment, in which case the mandatory minimum applies. Does he consider that relevant to his critique?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments and questions.

Certainly when one proceeds either by summary conviction or by indictment, that is often a question of what the various parties will be able to negotiate, and I would not want to see negotiations go off the rails because of minimum sentences that might colour the negotiations. It is unfortunate that we always have to keep minimum sentences in mind during certain proceedings, and this would be one of those cases.

Regarding the parliamentary secretary's vigorous defence of those mandatory minimums, at justice committee I asked the Minister of Justice how much all of this is costing the Canadian public to continuously be defending what is often indefensible. How much money is being invested to defend the minimum sentences the courts are throwing out on so many occasions? Regrettably the minister did not give us an answer. It would be interesting if the ministry could actually give us the number. How much are these minimum sentences costing the Canadian public, especially when they are so hard to defend?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's points on the bill. There are two things that concern me. One, there seems to be a loophole in terms of private service animals. I am not exactly sure what the meaning is of privately owned service animals and why they would not apply here, but maybe he could explain what he sees as the problem.

The other problem is the notion of mandatory minimums, particularly six-month mandatory minimums. That dovetails with the recent changes to the immigration law that now found that persons convicted of a crime of six months or more can also be deported, which then contaminates the justice process, in my view, in that judges and prosecutors would have to look at whether or not an additional penalty such as deportation can be applied in the case of a prosecution that is justified on the basis of harm to a service animal or other prosecutions that may take place, in which case the prosecution and the judges would have to take into account the additional penalties that may have to happen as a result of a mandatory minimum, which as the member points out, may be thrown out by the courts.

I wonder if he could comment on those two points.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a very important point. It is a very clear example of why mandatory minimum sentences often do not work. The penalty should fit the crime, and sometimes the penalty, as he correctly points out, will lead to further repercussions, and one has to wonder whether expulsion from a country is really what is being sought when we are imposing minimum sentences.

Perhaps it is; perhaps it is not. Again, I would leave that to the trial judge to evaluate and determine, with the facts in front of him or her, whether that kind of penalty would actually be justifiable in the circumstances. It is case by case in most instances, and minimum sentences simply do not afford us the luxury of being able to do a case-by-case evaluation.

As for what a private service animal is, service animals are used in many aspects of society. There are Seeing Eye dogs and many other animals for various private uses. When I say state use of animals, then we are talking about those animals that are actually in state service, and those tend to be animals trained in various services such as airport security, border services, and police services. Those are all state functions, but a private function is where one would normally see an animal in the service of a home.

In both cases, I would underline this. The parliamentary secretary mentioned that it costs $70,000 to $80,000 to train a police animal. It costs about the same to train an animal in private service, so frankly, I do not really understand the distinction that is being made by the government side on this point. Both animals are fundamental to running our society. People who need a Seeing Eye dog have every right to know that the Seeing Eye dog and they themselves are going to be protected by society as much as any other person who uses a service animal.

I really would like the government to correct the error. It brought up the question of people who use private service animals in its throne speech and, since then, has decided that it is not worth its time. If anything, I would like the government spend some time on that in the next couple of weeks in the House.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague did not have enough time to finish his speech and to say everything he wanted to. I would like to give him the opportunity to tell us more. My colleagues and I enjoy hearing the good proposals put forward by the NDP, the next government of Canada. I believe that Canadians watching at home would like to hear more about this. Therefore, I will give my colleague some more time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments and the opportunity he is providing.

It is important to point out some other aspects. I will go back to the evidence of Barbara Cartwright of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. She pointed out that the federation deals with private service animals—not law enforcement animals—which are animals that assist the blind or are used in similar circumstances.

In her evidence, Ms. Cartwright said:

Many of our member societies have enforcement authorities and appreciate the relationship between officer and animal. As well, they appreciate the value of deterrents and denunciation.

However, they would like to see greater protection for recognition of other services that are offered to society.

I invite people to carefully read her testimony of April 2015. She really draws attention to the fact that private service animals must be protected. Parliament has a responsibility to send a message that we want to defend these animals and that it is quite simply unacceptable to attack these animals. I do not see that in this bill. It is important to point that out because, once again, this government is taking a step backwards. This was a promise it made in the throne speech. We are now almost at the end of the parliamentary session, and there is still no bill demonstrating that it takes this seriously. It is one thing to say things in speeches, but it is another thing altogether to take action. Unfortunately, the government has not lived up to its obligations in this case.

Quite frankly, I believe that it has a great responsibility in this regard.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and for International Human Rights]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.

Today, I am happy to speak in support of Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, or Quanto's law. Quanto was an Edmonton Police Service dog who was fatally stabbed on October 7, 2013, while assisting police in apprehending a suspect. Regrettably, this tragic case is only one example of the many animals who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.

This landmark legislation proposes to amend the Criminal Code by creating a new offence that would specifically prohibit the injuring or killing of animals trained and being used to help law enforcement officers, persons with disabilities, or the Canadian Armed Forces. A person convicted under this new offence could face up to five years' imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison in all cases of indictable offences where a law enforcement animal is killed while assisting an officer in enforcing the law.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the hard work and contributions of my colleague, the member of Parliament for Richmond Hill. It was his original private member's bill that inspired this legislation. The constituents of Richmond Hill shared their concerns with my colleague, calling for a stronger punishment for those who deliberately injure or kill a law enforcement or service animal. Thanks to the efforts of this member, Quanto's law is a reality today.

This legislation recognizes the special role that law enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals play in the lives of Canadians and offers them greater protection in law by creating a specific offence. Second, this legislation would add a provision in the Criminal Code that would enhance the penalty for all forms of assault on law enforcement officers.

As members know, generally, unless the court specifically states that sentences are to be served consecutively, one after the other, or concurrently, simultaneously, to any outstanding sentence, the sentences are served concurrently, if arising out of the same event. This legislation would amend the Criminal Code to direct the courts that a sentence imposed for an assault committed against a law enforcement officer must be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed upon the offender arising out of the same event.

Attacks on law enforcement officers not only put the lives and safety of the individual officers at risk; they also attack and undermine the justice system more broadly. In recognition of this, in 2009, Parliament enacted section 718.02 of the Criminal Code, which provides that, when a court imposes a sentence for the offence of common assault, assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon, or aggravated assault, the court shall give primary consideration to the objective of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct. Requiring that consecutive sentences be imposed on persons who commit assault against law enforcement officers is consistent with the objective of the denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.

I am pleased to say that Quanto's law contains a provision that provides that a sentence imposed upon a person convicted of killing a law enforcement animal while it is aiding a law enforcement officer in carrying out that officer's duty shall be served consecutively to any other punishment arising out of the same event or series of events. It would send a clear signal to any would-be offenders that an attack on any law enforcement animal, military animal, or service animal is a serious matter deserving of serious punishment.

I would now like to say a few words about the mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison in the case where a law enforcement animal is killed while assisting a law enforcement officer in enforcing the law. In the course of the second reading debate of this legislation, concerns were raised with regard to the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum penalty. As the Minister of Justice correctly pointed out when he appeared before the justice committee on Monday, April 27, the court has not ruled out mandatory minimum penalties as an option for Criminal Code sanctions. As the minister explained, Quanto's law's proposed mandatory minimum penalty is specifically tailored to ensure that it would not result in a sentence that would be grossly disproportionate to the offence committed.

The minister referenced several reasons to support this point. First, the Criminal Code conduct directed at the law enforcement animal must occur while it is aiding a law enforcement officer in carrying out the officer's duties.

Second, the mandatory minimum will only apply when the crown prosecutor elects to proceed by way of indictment. As the minister pointed out, prosecutorial discretion is always exercised with a careful eye to proportionality, constitutionality, and totality, which is the same consideration used by judges. Where the crown elects to prosecute the offence as a summary conviction, the mandatory minimum penalty will not apply.

Finally, in terms of the length of the mandatory term of imprisonment, the six-month term of imprisonment is at the lower end of the range. In this respect, it is worth noting that the court sentenced Quanto's killer to a global sentence of 26 months for a series of offences and made it clear that 18 of those 26 months were specifically for the killing of Quanto.

I will close my remarks by stating that it would appear to me that considerable care was taken in drafting Quanto's law to address the concerns of Canadians and some serious gaps that exist in our criminal law while at the same time being respectful of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I congratulate the Minister of Justice and the member for Richmond Hill for their effort in accomplishing this important task.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the member the same question that I asked his Conservative colleague.

Is the Conservative government open to tightening up the laws on animal cruelty, particularly when it falls under federal jurisdiction? What is his personal position on that?

There are several examples that come to mind. Recently, in my region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, there have been some incidents in which companion animals were killed, hung or even shot with rifles. Given the definition of companion animal, such animals are considered property in Canada. I do not think anyone here is against virtue. Are the member and his government open to tightening up the laws so that killing a companion animal in this manner is considered a criminal offence?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that when an animal is working in humanitarian services, it is important that the animal be protected. This bill follows the concern for animals that are helping the police. At the same time, companion animals also perform a valuable service. Indeed, when such an offence is committed, many provisions in the Criminal Code could be applied. It is up to the prosecutor to seek appropriate punishment for that kind of offence.

This bill would send a very clear message that Canadians and this Parliament are taking the rights of animals that provide humanitarian services very seriously. It serves as a good example for prosecutors and judges of the intention of this Parliament in reference to companion dogs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a couple of thoughts regarding the services dogs provide. For many years, dogs have performed very important functions. When we think in terms of the future, these roles will continue to grow. More and more, we are seeing agencies such as the Canada Border Services Agency and different law enforcement agencies turning to dogs to help civil society in everything from issues of terrorism to drug control to assisting war vets.

I would ask the minister what he feels the future role of these dogs could be if we continued to provide proper support.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the importance of Quanto, who unfortunately only spent four years on the police force but was credited with aiding in over 100 arrests. That shows that these animals do work and are essential. Their dedication and the service they provide to human beings is crucial. This bill was brought forward by my colleague from Richmond Hill to ensure that we take their services seriously. However, as he has rightly pointed out, we must also make sure that we do our part, which is to protect them. That is the intent of this legislation. It protects these animals by sending a very strong message to any offender who would harm them that he or she would face serious punishment, which is why we have included consecutive and minimum sentences.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, also referred to as Quanto's law. I want to thank specifically my colleague from Richmond Hill for bringing forth this important legislation.

I have come to appreciate even more how important this legislation is through the testimony of witnesses who appeared and gave evidence before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. There was uniform support for this legislation from those who are intimately acquainted with the invaluable assistance provided by service animals. In particular, I was profoundly touched by the remarks of Ms. Diane Bergeron, executive director of strategic relations and engagement for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. Ms. Bergeron is a person who is blind and who has personally benefited from the assistance of a service animal for many years. When she appeared before the justice committee, her guide dog, Lucy, accompanied her.

As members know, the CNIB provides services to people across this country who are blind or partially sighted and has been doing so since 1918. These services include rehabilitation services, peer support, camps for kids, and a range of counselling and other support to assist the blind and partially sighted to learn about technology, how to get around, and orientation and mobility.

Although the CNIB does not train guide dogs or provide them to its clients, it has a good understanding of their importance and the impact these dogs have, because it sees them in service every day. It appreciates what these animals do to build their clients' confidence, to empower them, and to provide them with independence and freedom. It also sees the impact when bad things happen to their guide dogs.

On behalf of the CNIB, Ms. Bergeron expressed her view that this proposed legislation is very important for the people the CNIB serves across this country of Canada. However, what was even more meaningful, I believe, was her description of what it was like for her to lose her eyesight at a young age as the result of a condition called retinitis pigmentosa and how she was partnered with her very first guide dog, a golden retriever named Clyde, in 1984.

Ms. Bergeron has had a number of dogs since then. She told us that those dogs have given her two things. As one would expect, these guide dogs have given her mobility and safety. They guide her and keep her safe. The second thing they have given her is a clear understanding that not having sight does not mean she cannot have vision, hopes, and dreams.

At this point, I would like to quote directly from Ms. Bergeron's evidence to illustrate just how important her service animals have proven to be:

With my dog and the dogs since—there have been many—I have travelled from Montreal to Victoria. I've been to the United States, in many of the states. Last year, I travelled alone with Lucy to England, Scotland, and Norway, just with my dog. I have gone through many college campuses and university campuses. I have obtained two college diplomas, a bachelor's degree, and a master's degree....

Since 2009, I have gone skydiving, rappelled down the outside of the Sutton Place Hotel in Edmonton, 29 stories—while dressed as a superhero, I might add—and driven a stock car. In the last couple of years, I have decided to challenge myself just a little bit more by doing triathlons, including two half Ironmans, and this year, at the age of 50, I am going to compete in my first full Ironman at Mont Tremblant.

Ms. Bergeron summed up what having a service animal has meant to her with the following profound statement:

Over the years, my dogs have guided me to so many places, but most of all they have guided me towards my hopes and dreams.

While Ms. Bergeron has not personally experienced the loss of a service animal as a result of an attack by a person on one of her guide dogs, she did provide the members of the justice committee an illustration of why it is important that Bill C-35 not only address acts of violence committed against law enforcement animals, but that it also deal with such conduct directed against other service animals.

She recounted what befell her blind friend Judy, who lives in Denver and also relies on the assistance of a guide dog. I know that my time today is limited so I will not go into any details. I will simply state that Judy was obliged to replace her guide dog several times as a result of repeated attacks on her dogs by a person she described as a stalker. The details are quite shocking. I invite members to review the transcript of Ms. Bergeron's evidence.

What these service animals have in common with law enforcement animals, apart from specialized training, is that they are working animals with a job to do. For Ms. Bergeron, her service animal is not just a dog. Rather her guide dog is an instrument that ensures her independence.

Representatives of the law enforcement community also appeared as witnesses before the justice committee. Staff Sergeant Troy Carriere of the Edmonton Police Service Canine and Flight Operation Section, and Mr. Stephen Kaye, the president of the Canadian Police Canine Association, provided valuable insight into the important role played by law enforcement animals, as well as their perspective on the proposed legislation.

Mr Kaye advised the committee that it takes months and months and tens of thousands of dollars to train a law enforcement dog, and once deployed, these animals train every day for their entire career in order to remain as skilled as possible.

Staff Sergeant Carriere spoke of the incident that cost Quanto his life in the early morning hours of October 17, 2013. He spoke of how the loss of Quanto was devastating to every member of the Edmonton Police Service Canine Unit and of the overwhelming response and support they received from the people in Edmonton and other policing agencies across Canada.

Staff Sergeant Carriere also spoke of the crucial role that a dedicated Crown prosecutor had played in ensuring that the individual who killed Quanto received a meaningful sentence.

Looking at Bill C-35, Staff Sergeant Carriere saw the deterrent value in both the five-year maximum sentence when the case is prosecuted on indictment as well as the consecutive sentence provision. It is worth noting that Ms. Bergeron supported the enhanced sentencing measures contained in Bill C-35 for persons convicted of offences committed in relation to law enforcement animals.

At this point I would like to discuss two provisions in Bill C-35 that are of particular interest to me.

First, you may recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the bill was debated at second reading, some concern was expressed regarding the six-month mandatory minimum term of imprisonment that is to be imposed where a law enforcement animal has been killed by an offender in the course of the commission of an offence and afterwards the matter is prosecuted by indictment. The Minister of Justice addressed this matter directly when he appeared before the justice committee with his officials on Monday, April 27. Referring to the recent ruling in the Supreme Court of Canada in the Nur case, he indicated that the court had not ruled out mandatory minimum penalties as an option for Criminal Code sanctions, he indicated that he was satisfied that this mandatory minimum penalty is a targeted and justifiable measure.

I will close my remarks in support of Bill C-35 by commenting on a provision that has not garnered much attention.

I am speaking of the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code that would create a new section, 270.03, which would require that a sentence imposed on a person for committing any assault against a police officer and certain other law enforcement officers be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events. This provision is intended to deter such criminal conduct.

I support Bill C-35 because it addresses the gap in the Criminal Code. I firmly believe that there is a need to enhance the protection afforded service animals in the law. I also believe that the measures contained in this proposed legislation are measured and reasonable.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Bill C-35 was announced in the 2013 throne speech. It proposes to amend the Criminal Code and create a new offence to specifically prohibit the killing, maiming, wounding, poisoning or injuring of law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals.

Anyone found guilty of such an offence could be sentenced to up to five years in prison, with a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison. The NDP is opposed to any form of animal cruelty, and we have been defending that position in our legislative work for a long time. By way of evidence, two of my colleagues have already introduced bills on this subject.

For example, my colleague from Parkdale—High Park introduced Bill C-232, which seeks to move animals out of the property section of the Criminal Code and create a section on animal cruelty. Under the existing legislation and the Criminal Code, a person must own the animal or have some connection to it in order to be found guilty of animal cruelty. That means that if a stranger savagely kills an animal, he cannot be convicted under the law.

For example, the definition of “animal” is inadequate. It must be reviewed and so must the provisions of the Criminal Code. Bill C-232 would allow the justice system to deal more effectively with animal cruelty offences and increase the possibility of conviction for animal cruelty offences. This is a good bill. My colleague met with thousands of people who support this bill. I would therefore like to ask the minister and my colleagues across the way if they will work with us to regulate and enhance animal cruelty offences.

I would also like to talk about Bill C-592, which was introduced by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine. This bill seeks to better define what an animal is under the Criminal Code and define what is meant by intent and acts of cruelty. I would again like all my colleagues across the way to tell me whether the Conservative government will support these bills, which seek to modernize the Criminal Code and better regulate the treatment of animals.

We all agree that Bill C-35 is a step in the right direction, but we need to do more. There is still more work to be done. Something that bothers me a little is that the Conservatives have once again introduced a minimum sentence, which prevents judges from using their discretionary power. In reality, individuals are sometimes sentenced to prison terms that are longer than the minimum. This shows that judges are capable of making a proper judgment.

Bill C-35 is known as Quanto's law, in tribute to a law enforcement dog in Edmonton that was killed when trying to intercept a fleeing suspect. The offender was sentenced to 26 months in prison for animal cruelty. In this case, the judge used his discretionary power and relied on jurisprudence, existing laws and the evidence presented. This is how it should be. It is up to the courts, to an experienced judge, to determine a fair sentence for the offence. With Bill C-35, the government is once again showing its propensity for wanting to take away the courts' discretion.

As I said earlier, New Democrats believe that animal cruelty is disgraceful. We care about protecting these animals that are so dear to so many people. I want to share some examples of dogs that have demonstrated their loyalty to humans. In an exceptional case in France, Zarco was awarded the bronze National Defence Medal, which is normally handed out to human beings.

Very few animals, even those that are faithful law enforcement assistants, have received that honour. Zarko, who was specially trained to find lost people, was amazingly effective.

He began serving in 2002 alongside his master, officer David Monteil. Bearing badge 4637, the dog participated in 145 searches and 54 interventions with the Peloton de surveillance et d'investigation de la gendarmerie in Narbonne. Throughout his seven years of loyal service, Zarko, a French dog, saved lives and helped catch criminals. In 2006, he found the trail of a 78-year-old man lost in the vicinity of Narbonne, as well as that of a 79-year-old woman with Alzheimer's. She had wandered away from her retirement home and gotten lost. Zarko found her. In July 2007, in the stifling heat, Zarko saved a man with serious mental illness who was intending to commit suicide. The following August, he found the driver of a stolen car who had fled. In January 2008, near Lézignan, Zarko performed another miracle when he helped find a six-year-old child with autism who had left his parents' home. The child was half naked, wet from falling in water-logged ditches, and shivering with cold. In October, in Port-la-Nouvelle, the four-legged police dog found the body of a motorcyclist killed in a traffic accident whose body was submerged in a creek that ran through dense vegetation. On March 26, 2009, as Zarko was nearing retirement, he performed one last deed and found a 73-year-old man with diabetes and Alzheimer's who had left his home five hours before. This is a truly remarkable example.

I would like to talk about an example that is a little bit closer to home. Samba is a hero. This dog saved the life of his owner, Ms. Karin Hennelle, who is 68 and in a wheelchair. One day, when she was on her daily outing with her dog, a truck approached when she was about a kilometre away from home. There was a lot of gravel on the road, so the truck was driving down the middle of the road. Ms. Hennelle decided to get off the road. She moved over to the side of the road at the edge of a ravine. The truck went by, but the wheels of Ms. Hennelle's wheelchair slid on the grass. The wheelchair slid and Ms. Hennelle fell into the ravine. She said: “I felt myself falling. It felt strange.” Ms. Hennelle tumbled five metres down into the ravine until a tree stopped her fall. She had fallen. She would no longer be with us were it not for Samba. That is when the dog took action. Ms. Hennelle said: “I told the dog to go up and get help. Of course, I did not really think he understood me, but he went onto the road and barked as loud as he could.” The dog caught the attention of a farmer, and firefighters then came and rescued Ms. Hennelle. She says that she owes her life to her dog.

Now I would like to give a more institutional example. Until 1981, there was no Canadian guide dog training facility. The MIRA Foundation created the first such school in Sainte-Madeleine in Quebec. In order to get a guide dog before 1981, one had to turn to schools in the United States. However, those institutions provided no services in French. All services were in English. On October 21, 1981, MIRA proudly introduced the first two guide dogs trained in Quebec. Since that time, MIRA has been pursuing its goal to increase the independence of people with disabilities by providing them with dogs bred and fully trained to respond to their adaptation and rehabilitation needs.

We are talking about service dogs, animals that are already protected under the law. However, we are indebted to these animals, with whom we live every day, animals that are so important in our homes. They joyfully welcome us home after a long day at work. They are often more pleased to see us than our own children are. These dogs can console an adolescent in tears or simply be a good companion for a small child or senior. That is why I urge the government to support the two bills introduced by the NDP on animal cruelty.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to enter this debate, but I have just listened to my colleague confusing the issue of general animal protection with animal protection for these specific groups included in this bill. It is important for Canadians to realize what we are doing.

The current law, as it relates to cruelty to animals, is covered in section 445 of the Criminal Code:

(1) Every one commits an offence who, wilfully and without lawful excuse,

(a) kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose;

—liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years....

The is when the offence is prosecuted by indictment.

For clarity, I would like my colleague to affirm that this bill directly deals with military animals, law enforcement animals and service animals. All three of these categories are clearly defined within the bill.

It is important for Canadians to know what we are trying to do here. It is a special category of protection for those animals that provide specific protection to Canadians or provide specific help to Canadians who may be blind or need some assistance in that regard.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it may have been a problem with the interpretation. I want to stress that I do understand which animals are protected by the law. That is why I am saying that we still have work to do with respect to other animals, which are so important to the lives of many people. I am thinking of an older persons's dog, for example. It may not necessarily be a guide dog. It is the little dog that has been with us for years. It is the little dog that will also protect us against a thief who invades our home, because that dog will bark the loudest. Little dogs often bark the loudest. They are not covered by the law. I know exactly which dogs are covered by the law, but I also believe that we need to think beyond that.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments. There has been what I hope is just confusion about the scope of the bill.

The parliamentary secretary suggested earlier that privately held service dogs were not covered by the bill. The definition seems to include some but not all. I am not 100% sure. That is one issue.

The other issue is the whole notion of mandatory minimum sentences and consecutive sentences, which contaminates the justice system. Right now we trust our justice system to get it right. We have judges who have immense training and who have the right to make decisions about how laws are to be enforced and what is an appropriate sentence.

By creating a mandatory minimum, we create situations, such as for persons who might face deportation, in which the justice system may choose to back off on prosecuting a charge under Section 445.1, because the threat of deportation is much greater a punishment than should be afforded. Therefore, they cannot, in fact, prosecute.

This notion of these conflicting parts of the new laws that the Conservatives put forward, plus the notion of mandatory minimum sentences, may contaminate our justice system. Would the member like to comment on that.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I would say that there is something even more serious. The powers of the state are divided into legislative, executive and judicial powers. I believe that defining what judges should do is very dangerous. They are not allowed to use the jurisprudence and their own judgment to make decisions. That is very delicate.

The government really needs to understand that it is up to the judges to hand down decisions. They are capable of doing so. By forcing them to impose minimum sentences, not only is the government criticizing their work, but it is also filling up the prisons, which have no more room. Therefore, this has an adverse effect in terms of costs and, above all, it undermines the recognition of judges' capacity to make decisions, even though that is what judges do.