Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, and especially the member for LaSalle—Émard for sharing her time with me. I also want to congratulate her for her comments earlier today on the state of security on Parliament Hill. She gave a beautiful tribute to our security guards.

I find it quite fitting that today we are debating Bill C-35. As the title clearly says, this is an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals. We recently witnessed some rather extreme violence on Parliament Hill. We must pay tribute to those who are there every day to protect us and protect the institution of Parliament and the parliamentarians, elected members, senators, workers and assistants who work on Parliament Hill. We owe a lot to the security guards who were there to protect us yesterday.

The fact that we are debating Bill C-35 today highlights the fact that officers are not the only ones who are there. There are also service dogs. We saw this yesterday, and we see them all the time. These animals are prepared to risk their lives, consciously or not, to protect our society. We owe them a lot. That is why the bill before us today is laudable. It is a good bill, which has been called Quanto's law.

Quanto's Law is in memory of an Edmonton police service dog that was stabbed to death trying to stop a fleeing suspect in October 2013. A certain 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.

It is particularly interesting that the current law as it stands, article 445 of the Criminal Code, already establishes penalties for committing an offence, whether it be killing an animal, maiming an animal, wounding, poisoning, et cetera.

Certainly, when it comes to police dogs, it would certainly be incorporated into this law, but we already have a law. The law right now proposes that a person who commits an offence, if it is an indictable offence, is liable to a maximum of five years imprisonment. If the person is found guilty of an offence on summary conviction, the person is liable to one or both of a maximum of $10,000 in fines and/or imprisonment up to 18 months. This law would change that.

This is subtle, but I will try to explain. The bill would amend section 445 such that anyone found guilty of attacking an animal could be sentenced to up to five years in prison, and the minimum punishment is six months in prison.

Once again, the government is imposing a minimum sentence—and I will come back to that shortly—in cases where a law enforcement animal is killed while aiding a law enforcement officer in enforcing the law, where the offence is prosecuted by indictment. If a law enforcement animal is injured or killed in the line of duty, the punishment for the offence would be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person.

Currently, when judges sentence offenders, the sentences can be served at the same time or consecutively. When they are consecutive, that means the time adds up and the sentence is cumulative. In this situation, someone who kills a animal on duty that is actively trying to prevent the commission of a crime will receive a consecutive sentence. It will not be consecutive if the animal in question is helping a police officer who is trying to prevent a crime. The nuance is subtle, but it is there.

Nevertheless, this bill is flawed. It includes minimum sentences, thereby removing the judge's discretion in some situations. The trial judge knows the facts and is perfectly capable of deciding what sentence should be imposed.

When judges are forced to hand down a particular sentence, they are very reluctant to do so. Some judges have even refused to impose minimum sentences. Cases go to the appeal court or even the Supreme Court, which decides whether the sentence is constitutional.

Why would the government seek to implement a measure that could be deemed unconstitutional when it could have immediately moved forward with a bill that was worthwhile in itself? The mandatory minimum sentence makes it very hard to support this bill. Members, at least those in the opposition, should support this bill at second reading. That way, we could examine it in committee and have a more extensive debate. We could invite experts to appear who will explain the consequences of this measure.

I believe that there will be a consensus. The bill is worthwhile and the amendment to section 445 of the Criminal Code is a good idea, except for the fact that the government is going to impose a minimum sentence.

If the government were prepared to remove this aspect of the bill, I believe we would be more likely to reach a consensus among ourselves and with the witnesses who would appear before the committee to participate in a debate on the bill. In my opinion, many experts would not agree with the bill because of the minimum sentences. Regardless, I would like to hear from these experts, listen to their opinions and better understand whether they consider that the bill is constitutional and has merit and whether it should move forward.

We have time to send this bill to committee. I hope that we will have a very interesting and thorough debate. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have once again made a rather fundamental error in the wording of the bill. That is something that the Conservative government seems to be intent on doing. It has no qualms about constantly adding minimum sentences to bills.

I would like the government to look at what is happening in other jurisdictions. Quebec has determined that cruelty toward animals must be redefined. Harsher sentences are needed. This issue really needs to be examined, and more appropriate sentences are required. In Quebec, this debate will certainly take place, regardless of what happens with the bill before us.

With this bill, particularly given the mandatory minimum, the province in question will end up with people who have been found guilty in its provincial prisons. The province will have to foot the bill. Once again, the federal government is going to download costs to the provinces without providing any assistance.

Minimum sentences do not work for several reasons. One of the main reasons is that the province will once again be left with the costs imposed by the federal government, without any assistance from the feds. I would remind the House that section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out certain principles on which sentences are supposed to be based. I have to wonder whether mandatory minimums reflect the principles of section 718.

Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in the past, and it is important that we also examine it in the House and in committee.

I support this bill at second reading, but I hope the experts will explain the consequences to us in full.

Philip Toone

Transcript

Government Orders

Discussions (0)