Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to rise in this House. In fact, like a number of my colleagues, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to do so since yesterday's incidents. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sergeant-at-Arms Vickers, of course, but also the House of Commons security services. They did an outstanding job, just like the police forces who came to the rescue and backed up Parliament's security officers.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my staff. We are talking about MPs and parliamentary employees who were directly affected by the incidents, but there are also many offices around Parliament, around Parliament Hill, occupied by those close to us, including our office staff and the people in the clerk's office. Those people were also affected, and I would like to thank them for all their work and congratulate them on their exemplary conduct during that difficult time.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of my riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for the support they showed me by sending me messages at my office or on social media. I greatly appreciated it, and I would like to thank them for their prayers and support.
I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-35, which amends the Criminal Code with regard to law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals, for example animals for the blind. As many of my colleagues mentioned, we are going to support this bill at second reading because we support the basic principle of the bill. We hope that it will be carefully studied in committee. However, we hope that the committee will pay special attention to one particular aspect of the bill, and that is the mandatory minimum sentencing. This has been been discussed in the House quite often, and it will be the focus of my speech today.
The bill imposes mandatory minimum sentencing. It seeks to amend section 445 of the Criminal Code and impose a minimum sentence of six months if a law enforcement animal is killed when a crime is committed.
The creation of an offence for injuring or killing these animals as they perform their duties is a commendable goal. There are already provisions in the Criminal Code related to cruelty to animals. We also want to strengthen those provisions, but the government is taking advantage of a measure that seems acceptable to most, if not all, members of the House—I believe—to once again impose mandatory minimum sentencing.
That is a serious problem. Since 2008, this government has been imposing minimum sentences. However, minimum sentences do not reduce the likelihood that a crime will be committed. That has been shown time and time again. No credible scientific or sociological studies have proven the contrary. The government does not rely on studies that show the impact of imposing such a measure when passing or proposing potentially acceptable or effective bills. In my opinion, the government imposes these sentences because of its ideology. If these sentences are not based on science or demonstrable facts, I do not believe there is any other explanation for the government's actions, and I find that really unfortunate.
In the question I asked my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, one of the things I mentioned was one of the most recent cases handled by a provincial court. In two cases involving two provisions related to weapon possession, the minimum sentence was overturned by the Ontario Superior Court because it was cruel and unusual punishment and not in line with the offence. That is nothing new. It has been mentioned many, many times by extremely respectable law organizations, including the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec. Those are just two of the many associations and organizations that have told us exactly the same thing.
It comes as no surprise that the provincial courts are overturning federal proposals and legislation. In fact, we had already been warned in Parliament, in the House of Commons and during committee work, that this provision on mandatory minimum sentences would have this exact outcome.
The government obviously passed this measure, among others, for weapon possession. Quite recently, the government even capped it all off with the law and order omnibus bill, the bill to amend the Criminal Code, by sprinkling minimum sentences throughout Bill C-10, particularly for offences related to drugs, possession and possession with intent to traffic. No matter what offence the government's legislation targets, the reasoning is the same. The possibility of committing a crime is not reduced because a mandatory minimum sentence exists, because the person who would commit these crimes, for whatever reason, will not consider the provision. That has been demonstrated over and over again.
I would also like to point out that this is not a question of cosmetics or even a question of effectiveness. This is a fundamental question about the functioning of our government. Indeed, the provision on mandatory minimum sentencing changes our accountability system. Why? Because the power to determine a sentence, which should belong to a judge and therefore the judicial branch of government, is completely wiped out. This power is being transferred to one of the three main components of government, which are the executive, legislative and judicial branches. It is being transferred from the legislative arm to the executive arm. Even though we are talking about the provincial executive branch, since prosecution, sentencing and the administration of justice are under provincial jurisdiction, the fact remains that, ultimately, prosecutors have to answer to the various justice ministers, assuming of course they are not federal prosecutors who answer to the federal Minister of Justice. A power that should remain entirely judicial is being transferred to the executive branch.
Why am I saying this? Because the judges who determine sentences cannot do so, and the prosecutors are the ones who can ultimately use this whole range of mandatory minimum sentences during the review prior to the charge to determine the sentence themselves. Now, because of mandatory minimum sentences, prosecutors have more latitude to decide what sentence should be imposed than the judge who hears the evidence and arguments from the Crown and the defence.
I think it is just common sense to allow a judge, who has all the necessary tools, to determine the sentence and not leave that to one of the parties, namely the Crown, which does not have the defendant's interests at heart, in which case the process is biased.
When we talk about mandatory minimums, there is a standard of effectiveness that the government is not meeting. This is also a question of governance. Important powers that belong to judges are being transferred to the executive branch of the government. It is appalling that despite all the warnings that were given, the government is stubbornly going ahead with this anyway.
I think that all of the members of the official opposition, and I assume the members of the other parties in the House, would have been completely in favour of studying this bill quickly so as to really toughen up the sentences for individuals convicted of cruelty towards military animals, law enforcement animals and service animals. However, the government decided to take a more difficult route and, once again, raised the question of mandatory minimum sentences. That is the question that we will be bringing up in committee. We hope that the government will listen closely.
