Debates of June 11th, 2015

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

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the passion the member brings forth in her speech and that her party is opposed to mandatory minimums. However, I want to give her an example and get her reaction to it.

On February 24, 2006, the service horse Brigadier was killed. On January 15, 2007, the person responsible was found guilty and received a two year conditional sentence for dangerous operation of a vehicle causing bodily harm and failing to stop at the scene of an accident causing bodily harm. Obviously, the charge of bodily harm was with respect to the rider of the horse, not the horse, as there was never a charge laid in that respect. This is why we need Quanto's law. More succinctly, with respect to the death of the horse, there was no jail sentence given whatsoever. The severity of what was done on February 24, 2006, should be recognized. Could the member respond to that.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague was here during my speech, but I did speak about Brigadier and his death in my remarks. It was something that deeply shocked and offended people in the city of Toronto. They felt that what happened to that magnificent animal was such a horrible and senseless act. I think people felt that it was gut-wrenching for the officer who not only was injured, but then his horse had to be put down, a horse that had been his companion, his buddy while he had been working.

The member's question pertains to the severity of the penalty. The nub of the issue is that our animal cruelty laws date back to 1896 and really need to be updated. What has been put forward in Bill C-35 is certainly a step forward when it comes to this kind of cruelty and senseless act against a service animal. However, I would also draw the attention of the member to the companion animals right across the country that have faced wilful cruelty, death and neglect as, similarly, there are no consequences. It is extremely difficult to get a conviction under our existing animal cruelty laws.

Therefore, while this one bill does take a step forward, I would urge that we need a broader approach so we toughen up our animal cruelty laws throughout the whole process for all companion animals.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take anything away from the importance of service animals. In fact, I had the opportunity to comment on that earlier today.

We have now been debating Bill C-35 for a good number of hours. I understand that all members, from what I can tell, will be endorsing Bill C-35.

However, I would emphasize, that we are within 10 days of winding up the session and have an election just a few months away, yet we are forcing through the budget bill on time allocation. I attempted to have an emergency debate with respect to the thousands of people in Manitoba who have been displaced for a few years now, which is causing all sorts of issues with respect to culture preservation, death, and so forth. Although we are debating a bill that is an important issue, would the member provide some comments with respect to the way in which we are winding up the session, debating legislation or issues that would concern Canadians? Does the member have any concerns, for example, with the fact that very few members will be able to speak to the budget bill because of time allocation?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a point about how we are spending our time in this House. For me, the issue of animal cruelty is an important one, and I am happy to participate in this debate, but I do understand his point.

Yesterday we voted on time allocation for the 100th time in this House. Frankly, it is an affront to democracy. It is more than three times the number of times any other government in the history of Canada has brought in time allocation or closure motions, whether it is on the budget and throwing everything into an omnibus budget bill and really trying to hide from Canadians what it is the government is doing, which is fundamentally an affront to democracy, or whether it is ramming Bill C-51 through this House, sadly, with the support of our Liberal colleagues.

It has been an affront every step of the way. I can only say that I think that a lot of Canadians are really hopeful that this fall there will be a wind of change in this country, because they feel that their democracy has been undermined by these time allocation motions and the refusal to engage in true democratic debate on a broad range of subjects that are of great importance to Canadians.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I point out that the NDP has an atrocious record when it comes to the issue of animal rights.

There is a big distinction between animal rights and animal welfare, but I would like to quote the MP for Nanaimo—Cowichan on October 27. The member was talking about this same bill when we were debating it back then. She supports legislation in which “animals would be considered people and not just property”.

On the same day, the member for Gatineau said animals should be treated with “the same protection that we afford to children and people with mental or physical disabilities”.

The NDP's radical animal rights agenda is being exposed. There are private member's bills. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine's Bill C-592 has the entire sustainable use community and the medical research community up in arms. This particular bill would unintentionally criminalize all sorts of accepted, necessary, and traditional practices. Everything from food production to hunting, fishing and trapping, research using animals, sports and entertainment, and private ownership would be impacted by this particular bill.

I would like to ask the member why the NDP is embarking on such a radical animal rights agenda that would do so much damage to Canadian society?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question. I challenge the member. For example, my bill, Bill C-232, is about toughening up our laws on animal cruelty for companion animals.

I ask the member if he is in favour of animal cruelty. Does he think that people who torture dogs and cats should be able to walk scot-free? Does he believe that people who torture service animals should be able to walk scot-free without any penalty? If he does, I think that is an affront to the sensibilities of most Canadians. I do not agree with that.

I think we need to take a law from 1896 into the 21st century. The bill we are debating today certainly takes one step. The point I have been trying to make today is that perhaps we need to look at our overall animal cruelty laws to make sure that we are treating all companion animals fairly and not subjecting them to cruelty and abuse. That just makes good sense. I do not know why the member would stand on the side of people who would want to torture dogs and cats.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

What is fascinating are all the complaints I hear from opposition members about not having enough time to speak about a particular piece of legislation, and when they actually have the time to speak about legislation, they complain about not having enough time to speak about legislation. It is ironic.

I also want to point out that some young supporters of this piece of legislation from Beacon Christian School, and I will certainly not mention whether they are here, have come all the way from St. Catharines to Ottawa to make sure they give their endorsement and show support for this bill. I just want to make sure that we note that.

I am certainly proud to add my voice in support of Quanto's law. This is yet another piece of legislation our government has introduced with the goal of making Canadian communities safer. Every day, we ask women and men in uniform and service animals to risk their lives. They have an incredibly important role in keeping Canadians safe.

Regrettably, each year, some officers and service animals make the ultimate sacrifice in carrying out their duties. Only a few days ago, Constable Daniel Woodall gave his life in the service of his country and his community in Edmonton. Our deepest condolences go to his family and friends for their loss.

It is out of honour and respect for these individuals and animals that we continue to bring forward legislation like Quanto's law. The specific focus of this legislation is to deter persons from harming law enforcement and service animals and from assaulting law enforcement officers.

From the outset, there has been broad support in the House and in this country for this legislation. What concerns there may have been with regard to one aspect of this proposed legislation, a 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, have, I believe, been addressed in the course of the justice committee's deliberations and its study of this bill. It is our government's firm position that this legislation will withstand any charter scrutiny.

The most common type of law enforcement animal in use is the police dog. Police dogs are specifically trained to assist the 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. In the United States, anyone who kills a federal law enforcement animal could face fines and up to 10 years in prison. Similar statutes exist to protect police animals from malicious injury in almost every state in the U.S.

It is a 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 and accounted for, 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.

Quanto's law recognizes and honours the important contribution police dogs such as Quanto make to law enforcement. However, the bill also acknowledges the very important role other service animals play.

Through the work of the justice committee, we have become more aware of the invaluable assistance service animals provide to persons with disabilities, and I am pleased that the bill recognizes the important role other service animals play. Service animals are trained to assist or perform some of the functions and tasks that individuals with disabilities cannot perform themselves. There are several different kinds of service dogs, including guide dogs, hearing dogs, mobility dogs, seizure alert and response dogs, psychiatric service dogs, and autism dogs.

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

Another important aspect of Quanto's law is its proposal on the sentencing of persons convicted of committing any type of assault on a law enforcement officer, whether it is common assault, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, or aggravated assault. It would require that a sentence imposed on the offender be served consecutively to any other sentence that might be imposed on the offender for the same event or series of events.

For example, there is a report of a break and enter in a dwelling. 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, but the suspect pulls a knife and stabs the officer, wounding him and endangering his life. The officer is taken to the hospital and survives. Later, the offender is convicted of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer pursuant to section 270.02 of the Criminal Code, in addition to being convicted of breaking and entering into a dwelling house, which is contrary to section 348.

In such a case, the amendment in Quanto's law would require that the sentence imposed for the aggravated assault be served consecutively to whatever sentence was imposed for the break and enter.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, every day we ask women and men in uniform and service animals to risk their lives for our safety. We have a duty to ensure that those who would harm them are deterred or punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Bill C-35 will 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 men and women in uniform and these working animals, we will also be making Canada a safer place for all.

Let me conclude by stating what I believe to be a very important aspect of this legislation. I said at the beginning of my speech that all Canadians and almost everyone in the House supports this legislation. Regardless of the fact that we often spend a lot of time arguing with each other, from a government or opposition perspective, about legislation, regulation, or policies being debated here or at committee, one thing I do understand is that there are some issues that rise above partisanship.

I am thankful to all opposition members and parties for their support for this legislation. We are moving forward with something that is near and dear to most people across this country. It shows that we can rise above partisanship and actually find a piece of legislation on a goal that is honourable. When pain or death is inflicted on purpose on an animal, there is going to be legislation on the books that puts these individuals in conflict with our legislation, and they will serve time for the crime they have committed.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is connected, yet may seem a bit parenthetical to this. We are talking about the safety of law enforcement agencies and the work they have to do on our behalf. The recent tragic events in Edmonton have brought to mind again what it is that the law enforcement community does on our behalf each and every day.

There has been a move, in terms of safety, to allow and encourage the RCMP to carry recording devices on the front of their cars but also to carry them on their person, which has been instituted in some places. Some municipal forces have begun to do this. The reason it is a safety issue is that sometimes accusations are made or the procedures that follow in a criminal investigation bear only on testimony, testimony from a criminal, in some cases, or from someone who is suggested to be a criminal.

I am wondering if my friend has any comment on the expansion of that program, which has been done by some Canadians, to our national force to allow for greater protection of our men and women who serve in those police agencies.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question. Actually, in terms of relevance, while it may not be the exact intent of this legislation to deal with that issue, some of my closest friends, whether they be RCMP officers or members of the Niagara Regional Police, have entered into these kinds of discussions not only for tracking events but for safety.

Perhaps the member may be suggesting that it would be an extension of the potential safety and security of both law enforcement officers and animals. Certainly it is something we should all consider, and I think communities across the country are considering this as we speak.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member. I just want to pick up on the idea of service animals and the important role they play in our society, which goes beyond just any local community and is worldwide. We have, in recognition, more and more people around the world who realize that there is a significant role, and it varies.

We can talk about Canada border control, we can talk about our RCMP and different forms of law agencies, and we can talk in terms of the valuable role service animals play in society for retiring soldiers who have to go through PTSD. We talk about individuals who have the disability of being blind and are able to overcome the disability because of service dogs. Animals around the world play a very important role in our society.

As has been pointed out, it has been a long time since we have seen any tangible change in great detail in terms of the issue of animal cruelty. Many people would suggest that we should have a registry that would be applied for animal abuse and in particular for our pets. Would the parliamentary secretary have some comments in regard to what he would like to see ultimately brought in, going beyond this particular piece of legislation, which from what I understand, everyone is supporting?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would have to state that, in the close to 10 years that I have been here, we have only had one other private member's bill that dealt in any way, shape, or form with cruelty to animals and legislation in law that would pertain specifically to the treatment or unjust treatment by humans to animals. I do not disagree. I hope, from my perspective, that this is the start of what we can do as both the government and as a Parliament. Our legislation in terms of animal treatment and animal cruelty certainly needs to be updated. We have begun that process here.

However, for the member, if there is other legislation that should come forward in terms of the inhumane treatment of animals and the cruelty that is unjustly done to those animals, on this side of the House I will be the first one to stand up and support that. I think there is almost nothing worse than some of the treatment that is done to animals and the almost inevitable stopping of such an individual from having to face any type of penalty from our justice system. This is a great start, and there is more for us to do.

Message from the Senate

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate, informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired:

Bill S-224, An Act respecting National Seal Products Day.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, Post-Secondary Education; the hon. member for Ahuntsic, Public Safety.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

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

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments from the member for St. Catharines.

I support this proposed legislation, and it would have been a good thing had all parties in the House stuck to discussing the legislation. However, the NDP with typical overreach, went overboard last October and again today and extended the discussion to a discussion about animal rights.

We strongly support the notion of animal welfare, but the concept of animal rights, which NDP members strongly implied they wanted to implement, has done so much damage to Canada and Canadian communities that I can barely describe it. We can look at what has happened to coastal Inuit communities because of the animal rights movements against the seal hunt, the effect on the fur trade, and just as important, the effect on medical research.

It is a fallacy that Canada does not have strong animal cruelty legislation. In 2008, Bill S-203 was introduced with the full support of the animal-use community. The bill passed with a vote of 189 to 71, with the support of all Conservatives and some Liberal MPs. I suspect the NDP voted against it.

Bill S-203 substantially increased the fines and penalties for animal cruelty under the Criminal Code from six months imprisonment and/or a $2,000 fine, to five years imprisonment and/or a $10,000 fine and the prohibition of animal ownership.

Bill S-203 made a distinction between penalties for two categories of offences. One was for injuring animals intentionally or recklessly, and the second was for injuring animals by neglect. Most important, Bill S-203 did not contain language that would impede or prevent the type of traditional and accepted activities conducted by the sustainable animal-use community.

However, here we have an NDP member of Parliament, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, bringing in Bill C-592, an act to amend the Criminal Code on cruelty to animals. According to the sustainable-use community, which in this particular case is composed of hunting, trapping, and angling groups as well as medical research groups, this particular bill is the latest in a long line of legislative attempts to amend sections of the Criminal Code pertaining to animal cruelty.

There have been, between 1999 and 2014, some 18 bills introduced into Parliament. All of the bills but one, Bill S-203, have been voted on thus far and defeated for very important reasons. Each one of these bills contained wording that has been strongly opposed by a broad cross section of communities, including aboriginal communities, the outdoor community, agricultural producers, medical researchers, major colleges and universities, fairs and exhibitions, and even some religious groups.

This particular bill from the NDP MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine seeks to reintroduce the same wording that has caused all of the previous bills to be defeated. If passed, this particular bill could unintentionally criminalize all sorts of accepted, necessary, and traditional practices, the practices I talked about, which include food production, hunting, fishing, and most important, medical research.

The medical research community is highly sensitized to the wrong kind of animal rights legislation, like the NDP wants to introduce and talks about. Therefore, I would like to make the point most emphatically that there are a lot of people in this country who do not hunt, fish, or trap, but every one of us is affected by medical research, and medical research on animals is what has kept many of us alive. Again, a badly worded animal welfare, or animal cruelty, or animal rights piece of legislation would open the door to the criminalization of those kinds of activities.

When Bill C-35 was first debated back in October 2014, the New Democratic MP for Nanaimo—Cowichan said that she supports legislation in which “...animals would be considered people and not just property.”

The MP for Gatineau, on the same day, said that animals should be treated with “...the same protection that we afford to children and people with mental or physical disabilities”.

The implications of those statements are absolutely staggering, and this points out where the NDP members are actually coming from.

They support the kind of legislation that would criminalize many traditional, accepted animal uses in this country and, at the same time, would have a very serious effect on animal-based medical research. It is truly unfortunate that they are using this particular bill to expand their agenda, but now their agenda is in front of all Canadians, for Canadians to see and evaluate.

I would make the point that there are about four million people in this country who hunt and fish. I am chair of the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, and we are going to make sure that each and every one of them knows where the NDP is coming from.

I am not going to let the Liberals off either. Back in the late 1990s or early 2000s, the Liberals introduced Bill C-15B. I was working for a hunting organization at the time and had the honour to completely dissect Bill C-15B. That particular bill, similar to the bill by Mark Holland that was talked about earlier, which the member for Charlottetown said he was very sympathetic to—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Malpeque is rising on a point of order.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want the member to have his facts wrong. It was not the Liberals. It was a private member's bill by that individual. I know I fought against that bill, so he should not call it a Liberal bill. It was a private member's bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am not sure that was a point of order. Nevertheless, we will resume debate with the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was a government bill at the time. I fought that bill all the way along with the entire animal-use community in this country. Thankfully, in 2006, there was a change of government and Bill C-15B died on the order paper.

What Bill C-15B would have done was open up traditional animal uses to legislative interference by third-party groups, and that is why Bill S-203 was resoundingly passed in the House, primarily by Conservatives, and has the characteristic of criminalizing and penalizing egregious animal cruelty, something we all support. Egregious, deliberate animal cruelty must be condemned and criminalized, but at the same time, Canada's traditional, historic animal-use practices must be defended and, equally important, our medical research community, which depends so much on animal-based research, must be protected from harm so it can continue to do its important work for all of us.

That is why the Conservative hunting and angling caucus, of which I am chair, is making sure that the entire sustainable animal-use community in this country will know exactly where all the parties stand in terms of the use of animals.

I would like to express my complete support for Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, which I believe would contribute in a meaningful way to achieving our government's goal of making Canadian communities safer. This proposed reform supports the October 16, 2013, Speech from the Throne commitment to bring forward Quanto's law, to recognize that animals used in law enforcement are put at risk while assisting police in enforcing the law and protecting society. I was extremely pleased that the scope of the proposed legislation was expanded to also apply to other service animals, which also play an important role in making it possible for persons with disabilities to lead independent lives.

I am also very pleased to note that the bill proposes to enhance the punishment of persons who commit an assault on a police officer or certain other law enforcement officers. It would do so by requiring that a sentence imposed for any type of assault on a law enforcement officer, whether a common assault, an assault causing bodily harm, an assault with a weapon, or an aggravated assault, would be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender arising out of the same event.

I would now like to walk through Bill C-35 and compare it with the existing general offence of cruelty animals in section 445 of the Criminal Code. The proposed section 445.01 would create a new hybrid Criminal Code offence that is distinct from the general offence of cruelty to animals in section 445 of the Criminal Code. The classifications of animals that this would apply to are:

...a law enforcement animal while it is aiding a law enforcement officer in carrying out that officer’s duties, a military animal while it is aiding a member of the Canadian Forces in carrying out that member’s duties or a service animal.

This legislation clearly defines the prohibited conduct captured by the new offence. It would be an offence under the proposed legislation to kill, maim, wound, poison, or injure one of those animals. The legislation clearly defines the necessary mental element that must exist at the time of the commission of the offence. An offender convicted of the proposed offence would be subject to a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment when the offence is prosecuted on indictment and 18 months imprisonment and/or a $10,000 fine when the offence is prosecuted on summary conviction. These are the same maximum penalties as in section 445 of the Criminal Code.

I ask all members to reflect on the importance of law enforcement animals and our ability as legislators to improve the protection afforded these working animals that contribute so much to making our communities safer for all of us.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech, but we also know some of the wording that he used in trying to blame the NDP for so much. I just wish that the current government would actually act as fast on other issues. Instead it chooses to discriminate against aboriginal children. We can see that in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision that was just recently handed down on the government's retaliation on Cindy Blackstock.

I can tell members that one of my colleagues, Evelyne Smit, who has a service dog, has contacted me to say that she wants me to support this measure, but when we are looking at the quickness with which the government seemed to move on this particular issue, I just wish that the current government would move much more quickly when it comes to the well-being of children, especially aboriginal children.

My question is with regard to minimum sentencing. When we are putting this type of legislation forward, we also have to be mindful that there are ripple effects. The first ripple effect is that we would be removing the ability of judges to be able to make those decisions. The other aspect is the resources the government is actually putting in, because this measure would have a negative impact as well upon the correctional service. We need to ensure that there is room there. How much investment is the government making in that area?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the party of bad ideas and toxic policies wallows forever in self-righteousness and is shocked when it is caught out by its own quotes, because it is so sure that it holds the moral high ground.

The quotes that I gave were right from the NDP. The member for Nanaimo—Cowichan wants animals to “...be considered people and not just property.” That is a direct quote. The member for Gatineau said that animals should be treated with “...the same protection that we afford to children and people with mental and physical disabilities.”

Some 25 groups wrote to MPs to condemn the NDP member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine's private member's bill, Bill C-592. They condemned it as having the potential to criminalize traditional animal uses in this country. Again, the NDP certainly does not have the moral high ground on this or anything else.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I had a little dispute over a bill that was called the Mark Holland bill. On that we agree, in terms of our opposition to it.

However, I do think that the last member of the official opposition who spoke had a point that the member missed in his response. While I agree with the bill to a great extent, the problem of stacking consecutive sentences can be a problem. The United States is not doing that. It takes away authority from the judges to make decisions based upon their experience and based upon the circumstances. Does he not think that section of the bill goes too far?

I spoke on this bill earlier today. There is no question that service dogs, police dogs, and military dogs provide a duty and are immensely loyal to their trainers and to their partners who work with them and that we have to exercise penalties for those dogs that are injured or killed. However, in terms of the sentencing provision, does he really not think that this would complicate the correctional system even more than it already is?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do respect the community where the member comes from. I know he is a supporter of animal use in his constituency, where there is harvesting of marine resources and agriculture. As a former president of the National Farmers Union, he has a knowledge of agriculture that I respect.

In terms of the sentencing that would be provided under this particular bill, I think it is wholly appropriate. These animals sacrifice themselves for us, and there should be every extra effort to ensure that justice is done.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly honoured to stand in this place today and give my thoughts on Bill C-35, Quanto's law. I will be sharing my time with the member for Kootenay—Columbia.

As a former park warden and conservation officer, I will be giving my thoughts at the end of my speech on how the bill would have impacted me if I were still an officer today and how it would impact the colleagues and friends I have made over my years of service, as well as on what my intentions are when I stand in my place to pass the bill.

I am happy to speak in support of Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, otherwise known as Quanto's law. The legislation proposes Criminal Code amendments that would create a new offence specifically prohibiting the injuring or killing of animals trained and being used to help law enforcement officers, persons with disabilities, or members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Persons convicted of such an offence could face up to five years of imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison if a law enforcement animal is killed while assisting a law enforcement officer in enforcing the law and the offence is prosecuted by way of indictment.

First and foremost, the legislation recognizes the special role that law enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals play in the lives of Canadians and offers them protection in law through the creation of specific offences that carry with them special sentencing measures.

Second, the legislation would add a provision in the Criminal Code that would enhance the penalty imposed on an individual who assaults a law enforcement officer, whether that assault is a common assault under subsection 270(1) of the Criminal Code, an assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon under section 270.01, or an aggravated assault under section 270.02.

As we know, generally, unless the court specifically states that a sentence is consecutive or concurrent to any outstanding sentence, the sentences must be served concurrently. Consecutive or cumulative terms of imprisonment are served one after the other, which means there is no discount.

Clause 2 of Bill C-35 would amend the Criminal Code to direct that a sentence imposed under subsection 270(1), section 270.01, or section 270.02 for an offence committed against a law enforcement officer would have to be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender arising out of the same event.

Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out in clear language the purpose of sentencing in the following words:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

Attacks on law enforcement officers put the lives and safety of the individual officers at risk, and we know the kinds of risks that law enforcement officers face. We saw it this week in Edmonton, where Officer Woodall lost his life in service to his community in the Edmonton Police Service. It is a police service that I volunteered for at the Clareview police station when I was going to the University of Alberta. I have good friends who are serving with the Edmonton Police Service today. They are friends I grew up with in my hometown of Lacombe, Alberta. My thoughts and prayers go to them and the entire Edmonton Police Service family.

Attacks on law enforcement officers also 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 an offence under subsection 270(1), section 270.01, or section 270.02, the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.

This is quite technical, but what it means is that the requirement for sentences imposed on persons who commit assaults on law enforcement officers to be served consecutively is consistent with the objective of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.

I am pleased to see that Bill C-35, which is being debated today, contains a similar provision. It provides that a sentence imposed on a person convicted of killing a law enforcement animal while it is aiding a law enforcement officer in carrying out that officer's duties shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events. What this means for every law enforcement officer, for every dog handler, and for everyone who rides a horse or uses a service animal is that when it comes to sentencing, the offence against the service animal would be treated in the same way as an offence committed against a colleague on the force.

Bill C-35 also sends a clear signal that an attack on any law enforcement animal, military animal, or service animal is a serious matter, and that denunciation and deterrence of such conduct deserve to be the primary considerations in sentencing in such cases.

Section 718.03 would require that a court impose a sentence for the new offence under proposed new subsection 445.01(1) to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.

I would now like to say a few words about the mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison in cases where a law enforcement animal is killed while assisting a law enforcement officer in enforcing the law and the offence is prosecuted by indictment. In the course of the second reading debate of Bill C-35, concerns were raised with regard to the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum penalty proposed in Bill C-35.

In a decision released on Tuesday, April 14, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the constitutionality of a mandatory minimum penalty imposed on persons convicted of possessing loaded prohibited firearms contrary to section 95(1) of the Criminal Code in R. v. Nur and R. v. Charles. The court found that the three-year minimum penalty for a first offence and five years for a subsequent offence violated the cruel and unusual provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, as the Minister of Justice correctly pointed out when he appeared before the justice committee on Monday, April 27, the court did not rule out mandatory minimum penalties as an option for the Criminal Code sanctions.

As the minister explained, Bill C-35's proposed mandatory minimum penalty is 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 conduct directed at the law enforcement animal must occur while it is aiding a law enforcement officer in the execution of the officer's duties.

Second, the mandatory minimum would only apply when the Crown prosecutor has elected 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 are the same considerations used by a judge. Where the Crown elects to prosecute this offence as a summary conviction, the mandatory minimum penalty would 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 that sentenced Quanto's killer to a global sentence of 26 months for a series of offences made it quite clear that 18 of those 26 months were specifically for the killing of Quanto.

I would state that it appears to me that considerable care was taken in the drafting of this bill. Some serious gaps existed in our criminal law at the time, and we have been respectful of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I want to thank the Minister of Justice and my colleagues for what they have done.

I am going to talk a little bit about my personal experiences with this. I spent a number of years wearing a uniform in service to my province and to my country. I was a national park warden in Jasper National Park, where I had the opportunity to witness the great work that national park wardens do, not only in the backcountry search and rescue operations that they do.

I was a backcountry warden. I patrolled a large area of Jasper National Park called the Willow Creek district. I was the Willow Creek warden. My job was to patrol that area on horseback. I had three horses at a time with me. I would go in to the north boundary of Jasper National Park for 15 days at a time, come out for 6, and get showered and rejuvenated before I headed in again.

I was very pleased when this particular piece of legislation was brought forward because I thought to myself about it many times, whether I was riding the horses in the backcountry or in the front country, doing front country operations, because there are front country wardens who do similar things. They were great horses. I had this big thoroughbred named Moberly. He is probably in a green pasture in the sky right now because he was an old trooper at the time. My second horse was Yaeger. He was a mousy grey horse and one of the toughest horses I ever had the pleasure of working with. My third horse was Vim, a small chestnut quarter horse. These were my three horses that I was assigned. From time to time, I would take a different horse, Cowboy, to come out with me. He was a young horse that we were training.

During the time I was there, had something happened to me or had I been in a situation of duress, or had my horses been shot, say, by somebody who was poaching, while I was trying to execute my duties as a national park warden, the horses would not have been given any consideration. There would have been no crime committed by the perpetrator had the horses been injured or killed in the line of duty, serving me as a national park warden.

I was very clear in the committee and I asked questions of the experts who came. Although the bill does not specifically say that national park wardens are covered, it does say “peace officer”. Section 18 of the Canada National Parks Act actually defines national park wardens as peace officers, so I want to be very clear to any court that might challenge this at some particular point in time that, when I stand in this place and vote for this bill, and as I am speaking about it today, I am speaking with the intention that every park warden, every conservation officer, and everybody who is in the natural resources field who uses a service animal in the aid of their duties should be considered covered by this legislation, as well as any law enforcement officers and military personnel who are prescribed in that particular way.

That is my intent for this legislation. I am proud to support this piece of legislation. I am glad the government brought this legislation forward. I thank all my colleagues who are going to support it.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for sharing some interesting personal anecdotes.

I want to ask him to speak a little more about the mandatory minimum sentence included in the legislation. He did speak about it a bit.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said; “...too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly good law enforcement reason.” He was talking about mandatory minimums.

Then Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform, has said:

The biggest problem from the perspective of the taxpayer, however, is that mandatory minimum sentencing policies have proven prohibitively expensive.…The benefits, if any, of mandatory minimum sentences do not justify this burden to taxpayers.

The Americans, who have a longer history of mandatory minimum sentences, have found that this criminalizes, for a longer period of time, a whole section of the population. Ultimately the benefits are not obvious. In fact, it is probably not a deterrent, which is what our justice department also said. It is not fiscally prudent to deal with what in many cases are social issues, and I am not saying in this case, that are deal with by the criminal justice system.

My question to the member opposite is, given the experience of the U.S., which is now turning away from mandatory minimum sentences, how can he justify that in this bill?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I remember, before I was elected to this House the first time in 2006, the outcry every time there was a Liberal leftie sentence handed down for serious offences, where law enforcement officers were killed or people were heinously killed or multiple people were killed, and the offender was to serve concurrent sentences. There was an outcry from the public. There was outcry from the victims. The victims were outraged at the lack of justice that appeared in some of these sentences.

We have changed that. One only has to take a look at cases, like where Travis Baumgartner will now be in jail for at least 42 years before he can even apply for parole for killing three of his colleagues, armoured car drivers; or Russell Williams, the disgraced Air Force officer who murdered two people, will be serving consecutive sentences and be in jail for a very long time.

I do not know why the hon. member wants to bring this up on this particular bill. It is not like a lot of service animals do get hurt, but they do get hurt and they do get killed. The provisions I spoke about in my speech say there are very specific conditions that have to be met. The prosecutor has discretion when he moves to indictment on a trial, an animal has to be killed.

This is very consistent with the agenda that the NDP has. Why would the NDP members question serving consecutive sentences at a time like this? It makes no sense. Their position is completely hypocritical.