14925 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 229 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, June 11, 2015 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES June 11, 2015 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 229 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 229 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 229 (Version officielle) 147 229 11 06 2015 2015/06/11 10:00:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Routine Proceedings (1005) [ English ] Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

Protection of Communities from the Evolving Dangerous Drug Trade Act Hon. Gary Goodyear (for the Minister of Health) Bill C-70. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-70,

An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related amendments to other Acts . (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Interparliamentary Delegations Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association respecting its bilateral visit to the Caribbean, to St. George's, Grenada, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands, April 21 to 26, 2014.

Committees of the House Procedure and House Affairs Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 39th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, concerning the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.

Government Operations and Estimates Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, in relation to its study on the programs and the activities of the Canadian General Standards Board.

[ Translation ] Status of Women Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Women in Skilled Trades and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Occupations”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[ English ] Live-in Caregiver Access, Respect and Employment Act Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) Bill C-690. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-690,

An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (live-in caregiver) . He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would set up a system of regulated entities whose job it would be to recruit caregivers on behalf of families. This would benefit the families who would be spared the bureaucracy and financial risk they currently endure, and it would benefit caregivers because, in the case of a misfit or abuse, the employer would be able to find an alternative family for the caregiver. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[ Translation ] Income Tax Act Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) Bill C-691. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-691,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (business transfer) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to introduce this bill in the House of Commons. It amends the Income Tax Act in order to correct an injustice in the Canadian tax system that affects owners of family businesses.

In these times of economic contraction and high youth unemployment, I am proud of this initiative that will foster the continuity of family businesses, help them create good jobs and enable thousands of families to transfer the fruits of their labour to the next generation. [ English ] I thank my hon. colleague John McCallum for his always precious advice, and the vast number of organizations pledging official support, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Association of Family Enterprise, who will voice their support at my announcement later today.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) The Speaker : I will take this opportunity to remind the hon. member for Bourassa not to use proper names in the House, but use ridings or titles.

Proper Use of Prescription Drugs Act Mr. John Weston (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, CPC) Bill C-692. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-692,

An Act respecting a federal framework on the proper use of prescription drugs and establishing National Prescription Drug Drop-off Day . He said: Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to present to the House a bill that would create a federal framework that responds to the need for the proper use of prescription drugs and would create a national prescription drug drop-off day.

This responds to rising trends such as the fact that Canadians are the second largest per capita users of opioids in the world, and that we have rising rates of fatalities and hospital visits relating to improper prescription drug use. This is supported by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and by the national association of pharmacists, and I am pleased to be working very closely with the health minister, the member for Oakville , and the member for Kootenay—Columbia , who all together represent many Canadians who share this concern.

I invite all my colleagues to help me get the bill passed. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions Pensions Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 100 or so people from Dartmouth and surrounding communities. The petition is with respect to defined benefits pension plans, and it calls on the government to ensure that employers live up to the promises made in the defined benefits plans and that it recognizes that pensions are deferred promises and deferred wages and that they are extremely important for the future of our communities. It calls on the government to improve retirement security, because 62% of Canadian workers are without workplace pensions and the Canada pension plan should be expanded.

(1010) Firearms Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to present petitions on behalf of some 30,000-plus Canadians who call on the government to repeal item 2 of

part 2 of the

schedule to the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted. I also have a petition calling on the government to repeal item 3 of

part 4 of the

schedule to the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited or Restricted.

[ Translation ] VIA Rail Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present two petitions today. The first is from my riding, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine. The petitioners are calling on VIA Rail to provide passenger rail service, which we lost two years ago. The petitioners want the service to be reinstated. Transportation in our region is difficult, and having passenger rail service available would make our region merely remote, not isolated.

Canada Post Mr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting was signed by many people who want better service from Canada Post. They are against the recent cuts and want Canada Post's services to meet 21st-century expectations.

[ English ] Poverty Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am rising to present three petitions. In the first one, the petitioners call on the government to work with community partners to create and execute an anti-poverty plan based on human rights. This plan should focus on issues like income security, housing, health, food security, employment, and early childhood education and care. These concerned citizens recognize the need to establish goals to tackle poverty over the long term.

Tobacco Products Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the government to pass legislation that bans all flavouring from tobacco products because of the attractiveness of the product to Canadian youth. Flavoured tobacco products are especially marketed to youth because they are easy to use and promote addiction at an early age. The petitioners recognize the need to pass legislation in order to protect our youth from the harmful effects of smoking.

Canada Post Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on the government to place a moratorium on cuts to Canada Post services. Under recent announcements by Canada Post, 6,000 employees will lose their jobs and millions of households will lose home delivery. The petition calls for Canada Post to give its customers a chance to have real input into the modernization process.

Canadian Coast Guard Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is signed by people from my riding of Vancouver Kingsway who want to register their opposition to the government's decision to close Canadian Coast Guard marine communications and traffic service centres across the country, as well as to close Coast Guard marine rescue centres in Quebec City, St. John's, and Kitsilano, B.C.

With the summer approaching, these petitioners point out that closing these centres increases the risk of accidents on sea involving passenger ships, ferries, tankers, and dangerous cargo. The closure of the Inuvik centre weakens our sovereignty in the north and it threatens mariners' safety. The petitioners ask the government respectfully to reconsider that decision.

Canada Post Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition is again signed by residents of Vancouver Kingsway who are calling upon the government to direct Canada Post to cease its plan to stop home mail delivery. The petitioners point out that there are myriad reasons why home delivery is necessary, including safety of the mail, assistance for Canadians with disabilities, and the insecurity of super boxes, among other things.

Abortion Hon. Ron Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition on behalf of constituents indicating that Canada is the only nation in the western world, in company with China and North Korea, without any laws restricting abortion and that the Supreme Court has said that Parliament's responsibility is to enact abortion legislation. The petitioners are calling upon Parliament assembled to speedily enact legislation that would restrict abortion to the greatest extent possible.

[ Translation ] Lac-Mégantic Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to present a petition prepared by the Comité citoyen de la région du lac Mégantic. Many residents of the region have signed the petition, because a number of questions remain unanswered. They are calling on the Government of Canada to call a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the MMA train derailment that took the lives of 47 people and destroyed and contaminated downtown Lac-Mégantic on July 6, 2013.

(1015) [ English ] Tobacco Products Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I bring forward a petition today that I believe was initiated by youth, which indicates that flavoured tobacco products are marketed to youth by the tobacco industry and that these flavoured and easy-to-use products serve to attract and addict youth to the product at a very early age. The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to pass legislation that would remove all flavours from all tobacco products.

[ Translation ] CBC/Radio-Canada Ms. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to present a petition signed by many residents of the city of Terrebonne, in my riding. They are calling on the government to guarantee stable, adequate, multi-year funding for our public broadcaster so that it can live up to its mandate from coast to coast to coast. Cuts to the CBC have taken a serious toll on the broadcaster's ability to deliver services in French, and the people of Terrebonne are very concerned about that.

Agriculture Mrs. Anne-Marie Day (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, who are calling on the government to respect the rights of small family farmers to store, trade and use seeds. They are calling on the government to adopt international aid policies that support small family farmers, especially women, and recognize their vital role in the struggle against poverty.

[ English ] The Environment Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today in support of my climate change accountability act. It is a petition I presented in this House many times before, reflecting the concerns of Canadians with the failure of the government to address climate change, reflecting the concerns of Canadians with actions of the government, such as the cancellation of the ecoENERGY retrofit program, and with the ongoing subsidization of the oil and gas industry.

The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to support my climate change accountability act, a law that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hold the government accountable.

Proportional Representation Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, due to the numerous time allocations this week and lack of time for petitions, I have three, but I will try to move quickly. The first petition is from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands who are calling for the end of the winner-take-all voting system in this country, otherwise known as “first past the post”, and calling upon the House of Commons to undertake public consultations across Canada to amend the Canada Elections Act to come up with a fair voting system in which every vote counts.

The Environment Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the second petition, again from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands , deals with the issue of marine protected areas. The petitioners are calling for the creation of more marine protected areas, but also for a simplification of their regulation within Fisheries and Oceans. The petitioners point out that there are currently 11 different classifications for MPAs and that they can be regulated by different branches of government. They ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to work with the government branches to come up with a simplified and more effective system.

Housing Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, the last petition, again from petitioners within my own riding, calls for the government to undertake an affordable housing plan and program, engaging the Federation of Canadian Municipalities; and calls for one particular measure to change the tax regime to encourage the building of purpose-built rental housing that would be affordable.

Sex Selection Ms. Wai Young (Vancouver South, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today from a number of British Columbians. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to condemn discrimination against girls through sex-selection abortion.

[ Translation ] Dorval Golf Course Ms. Isabelle Morin (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition signed by thousands of people in my riding and on the entire West Island who are calling on the Minister of Transport to save the Dorval golf course. These names are in addition to the 12,000 names on the petition I presented last week. In response to my questions, the minister told me that the decision is up to Aéroports de Montréal, but ADM says it is up to the department. People expect the minister to take

part in this debate. This is a green golf course on the West Island, in Dorval, that does not use pesticides or golf carts. Seniors go there to get exercise. It is a meeting place for seniors, and people want to keep it. A major protest movement is forming because people do not want to see this golf course close. It is important to the West Island. I am asking the minister to intervene and tell us whether she will protect the golf course because this request has broad support. Thousands of people have come together over this in short order. It is very important to them and to us. I am very happy to support them.

Mining Industry Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition calling for the creation of a legal ombudsman mechanism for responsible mining. The petitioners find that the voluntary office set up by this government in 2009 has proven to be totally ineffective. It is time to replace it with something that works.

(1020) Latin-American Heritage Day Ms. Paulina Ayala (Honoré-Mercier, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the petition I am presenting today concerns the designation of Latin-American heritage day. The petitioners are members of the Latin American community and a visible minority. People from that region have settled across Canada and play an important role, especially in the development of the arts, the economy, politics and science and the establishment of community organizations in Canada. They are asking the members of the House of Commons to support Bill C-635 to designate October 5 as Latin-American heritage day throughout Canada.

[ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1,187 to 1,193, Questions Nos. 1,195 to 1,205, and Question No. 1,207 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ] Question No. 1187-- Ms. Wai Young : With regard to government funding in the riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (

i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (

v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in ( a ), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline of the press release? (Return tabled) Question No. 1188-- Mr. David Wilks : With regard to government funding in the riding of British Columbia Southern Interior, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (

i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (

v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in ( a ), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline of the press release? (Return tabled) Question No. 1189-- Mr. David Wilks : With regard to government funding in the riding of Kootenay—Columbia, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (

i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (

v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in ( a ), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline of the press release? (Return tabled) Question No. 1190-- Ms. Joyce Murray : With regard to the government’s search for the lost ships of the Franklin Expedition: (

a) what have been the total internal and external costs incurred by the government between 2007 and now; (

b) out of the total costs associated with ( a ), what have been the total associated costs incurred by the Department of National Defense; (

c) out of the total cost associated with ( b ), what have been the total associated costs incurred by the Royal Canadian Air Force; (

d) out of the total cost associated with ( c ), what have been the total costs associated with the utilization of transport equipment, including the associated (

i) equipment depreciation costs, (ii) fuel costs, (iii) personnel costs; (

e) out of the total cost associated with ( b ), what have been the total associated costs incurred by the Royal Canadian Navy; (

f) out of the total cost associated with ( e ), what have been the total costs associated with the utilization of transport equipment, including the associated (

i) equipment depreciation costs, (ii) fuel costs, (iii) personnel costs; (

g) out of the total cost associated with ( a ), what have been the total associated costs incurred by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; (

h) out of out of the total cost associated with ( g ), what have been the total associated costs incurred by the Canadian Coast Guard; (

i) out of the total cost associated with ( h ), what have been the total costs associated with the utilization of equipment, including the associated (

i) equipment depreciation costs, (ii) fuel costs, (iii) personnel costs; (

j) out of the total cost associated with ( a ), what have been the total associated costs incurred by the Department of the Environment; (

k) out of the total cost associated with ( j ), what have been the total associated costs incurred by Parks Canada; and (

l) out of the total cost associated with ( k ), what have been the total internal and external costs associated with underwater archeological operations, including the associated (

i) equipment depreciation costs, (ii) personnel costs? (Return tabled) Question No. 1191-- Mr. Blake Richards : With regard to government funding in the riding of Wild Rose, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (

i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (

v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in ( a ), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline of the press release? (Return tabled) Question No. 1192-- Mr. Dave MacKenzie : With regard to government funding in the riding of Oxford, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (

i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (

v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline of the press release? (Return tabled) Question No. 1193-- Mr. Dave Van Kesteren : With regard to government funding in the riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (

i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (

v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in ( a ), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline of the press release? (Return tabled) Question No. 1195-- Mr. Larry Miller : With regard to government funding in the riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (

i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (

v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in ( a ), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline of the press release? (Return tabled) Question No. 1196-- Mr. Brad Butt : With regard to government funding in the riding of Mississauga—Streetsville, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (

i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (

v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in ( a ), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline of the press release? (Return tabled) Question No. 1197-- Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon : With regard to government funding in the riding of Mississauga East—Cooksville, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (

i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (

v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in ( a ), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline of the press release? (Return tabled) Question No. 1198-- Mrs. Stella Ambler : With regard to government funding in the riding of Mississauga South, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (

i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (

v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in ( a ), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline of the press release? (Return tabled) Question No. 1199-- Mr. Larry Miller : With regard to government funding in the riding of London North Centre, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (

a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group, broken down by (

i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (

v) department or agency providing the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose; and (

b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in ( a ), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (

i) date, (ii) headline of the press release? (Return tabled) Question No. 1200-- Mr. Romeo Saganash : With regard to government funding allocated in the constituency of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for fiscal year 2014-2015: (

a) what is the total amount of this funding, broken down by (

i) department, (ii) organisation, (iii) any other government body, (iv) program; and (

b) this funding is directly responsible for the creation of how many jobs that are (

i) full-time, (ii) part-time? (Return tabled) Question No. 1201-- Mr. Romeo Saganash : With regard to government funding allocated in the constituency of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for fiscal year 2013-2014: (

a) what is the total amount of this funding, broken down by (

i) department, (ii) organisation, (iii) any other government body, (iv) program; and (

b) this funding is directly responsible for the creation of how many jobs that are (

i) full-time, (ii) part-time? (Return tabled) Question No. 1202-- Mr. Romeo Saganash : With regard to government funding allocated in the constituency of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for fiscal year 2012-2013: (

a) what is the total amount of this funding, broken down by (

i) department, (ii) organisation, (iii) any other government body, (iv) program; and (

b) this funding is directly responsible for the creation of how many jobs that are (

i) full-time, (ii) part-time? (Return tabled) Question No. 1203-- Ms. Christine Moore : With regard to government funding allocated in the constituency of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, broken down by fiscal year from 2011-2012 to present: (

a) what is the total amount of this funding, broken down by (

i) department, (ii) agency, (iii) program, (iv) any other government body; and (

b) how many jobs are estimated to have been created by this funding, broken down by (

i) full-time jobs, (ii) part-time jobs? (Return tabled) Question No. 1204-- Mr. Sean Casey : With respect to advertising for the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for the years 2003 to 2015 inclusively: (

a) what was the advertising budget for the CRA, broken down by year; (

b) how many different advertising campaigns were created and used, broken down by year; (

c) how many different advertisements were produced and used, broken down by year; (

d) what was the total cost (design, production, airtime, printing, etc.) for the advertising campaigns in ( b ); (

e) what was the total cost (production, airtime, printing, etc.) for the advertisements in ( c ); (

f) what was the cost to produce the television, radio, print, or online spots, broken down individually by advertisement; (

g) what companies produced the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement; (

h) what was the cost of television airtime for the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement; (

i) on which television channels were the advertisements aired; (

j) what was the cost of online airtime for the advertisements, broken down individually by advertisement; (

k) on which online platforms were the advertisements aired, broken down by (

i) free media (i.e. posting to YouTube), (ii) fee media (i.e. online commercials); (

l) what was the cost of ad space in newspapers and other print publications, broken down individually by advertisement; and (

m) what programs or divisions of CRA were responsible for (

i) overseeing and coordinating production of the advertisements, (ii) financing the production of the advertisements, (iii) financing the purchase of airtime both on television and online, and print space in newspapers and other print publications? (Return tabled) Question No. 1205-- Mr. Sean Casey : With regard to legal costs incurred by the government: what are all costs incurred for legal services, broken down by services provided internally and services contracted out, relating to (

i) Reference re Senate Reform, 2014 SCC 32, (ii) R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, (iii) Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 14, (iv) Reference re Securities Act, 2011 SCC 66, (

v) Ishaq v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2015 FC 156 and its ongoing appeal? (Return tabled) Question No. 1207-- Ms. Yvonne Jones : With regard to the Canadian Coast Guard: (

a) are there Environmental Response Caches or Community Packs (Packs) located in sites in coastal Labrador, Nunavik, or along the Hudson Bay or James Bay coastlines of Quebec, Ontario, or Manitoba, and if so, where are they located; (

b) were there formerly Packs located in sites in coastal Labrador, Nunavik, or along the Hudson Bay or James Bay coastlines of Quebec, Ontario, or Manitoba, and if so, where are they located; (

c) are there any plans to establish Packs located in sites in coastal Labrador, Nunavik, or along the Hudson Bay or James Bay coastlines of Quebec, Ontario, or Manitoba, and if so, where are they located; (

d) for sites of existing Packs, when was each such Pack established; (

e) are there sites which formerly hosted Packs, specifying in each case, (

i) when the Pack was established, (ii) when the Pack was removed; and (

f) what are the file numbers, dates, and titles of any and all reports, assessments, records, briefing notes, dockets or any other documents related to (

i) the establishment and maintenance of Arctic Community Packs in Nunavut or the Northwest Territories, (ii) the possible establishment of Packs in any of the locations referred to in (

a) through ( c )? (Return tabled) [ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, finally, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

(1025) Request for Emergency Debate Induced Displacement of Manitoba First Nations S. O. 52 The Speaker : The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Winnipeg North . I will hear him now. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider two things in reaching your decision. One is that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report was released last week. The second is that we are now in the dying days of a session, and my request relates to an event that took place four years ago.

It would be an absolute shame if we were not able to provide some of the answers that need to be provided to first nations communities that have been impacted in such a very real and tangible way. I would like to thank Dr. Myrle Ballard in particular, along with Cindy Woodhouse, for their input and for making sure that I had a better understanding of the seriousness of the issue. I would like to be able to share that with members of the opposition and the government in the hope that they will understand why it is very important that we move ahead with this particular emergency debate.

I will share with the House that in the province of Manitoba in 2011, over 5,000 first nations people living downstream from the Fairford Dam were flooded out from what was called a natural flood. This was, in fact, not a natural flood. First nations were deliberately flooded out. The Lake St. Martin First Nation is still 100% displaced. Half of the 800 members of the Little Saskatchewan First Nation are still displaced. Induced displacement has left the first nations very vulnerable. Not having a land base leads to cultural genocide, many would argue. The first nations people are scattered throughout Manitoba.

The social fabric of their communities has been destroyed. Their homes have been destroyed. Many are homeless and end up on the streets of Winnipeg and elsewhere. Their economic and traditional livelihoods have been destroyed. They are suffering and dying due to the physical, emotional, and mental stress and trauma of being displaced. Over 10% of the people of the Lake St. Martin First Nation have died since the evacuation. Children are being exposed to racism and are joining gangs and taking

part in other activities they were not exposed to when they were living in their own communities. Women are miscarrying and people are committing suicide. People are dying tragically and prematurely. They emphasize these facts in a very bold way. They want to remind members of the House that removing children to attend residential schools was cultural genocide, and the removal and relocation of entire communities in this day and age, they suggest, is also cultural genocide. What is the government going to do to relocate these communities to high and dry land?

In short, there are four points that are really being emphasized: one, induced displacement and loss of land leads to cultural genocide; two, induced displacement is impacting on the health of the evacuees; three, first nations need new and dry land, which they should select for themselves to meet their community needs; and four, induced displacement has led to a loss of traditional and economic livelihoods. Yesterday I posed the question to the minister, and the minister's response clearly demonstrated the need for the House to debate the issue today.

Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling The Speaker : I thank the hon. member for raising the question. While there is no doubt that he feels very strongly about this particular issue, I do not find that it meets the test for an emergency debate.

Government Orders Government Orders [ English ] Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law) Bill C-35. Report stage The House proceeded to the 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. The Speaker : There being no motions at report stage on this bill, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question of the motion to concur in the bill at report stage. Hon. Gary Goodyear (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) Motion for concurrence moved that the bill be concurred in. The Speaker : Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed. (Motion agreed to) The Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now? Some hon. members: Agreed. Hon. Gary Goodyear (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) Bill C-35: Third reading moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be here today to take

part in the third reading debate of Bill C-35 , the justice for animals in service act, also known as Quanto's law. The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code support the Speech from the Throne commitment to bring forward Quanto's law in recognition of the daily risks taken by police officers and their service animals. The proposed amendments would create a specific new offence prohibiting the killing or injuring of a law enforcement animal, a service animal, or a military animal. I note that the bill defines each of these terms.

A law enforcement animal is defined as a dog or a horse trained to aid a law enforcement officer in carrying out that officer's duties. A military animal is defined as an animal that is trained to aid a member of the Canadian Forces in carrying out the member's duties, and a service animal is defined as an animal that is required by a person with a disability for assistance and that is certified, in writing, as having been trained by a professional service animal institution to assist a person with a disability.

Quanto was a five-year-old German shepherd Edmonton police service dog that was fatally stabbed on October 7, 2013, while assisting the police in apprehending a suspect. Quanto and its handler, Constable Matt Williamson, were in pursuit of a suspect in a stolen vehicle. When the vehicle became disabled at a gas station, the man jumped out and fled. Constable Williamson ordered the suspect to stop or he would send in Quanto. When his calls were ignored, Constable Williamson deployed Quanto. Unfortunately, as Quanto caught and held the suspect, the suspect began stabbing the dog with a knife.

Quanto was taken for medical treatment, but his injuries, sadly, were fatal. The Criminal Code has contained offences relating to the treatment of animals since 1892, and the current set of offences has existed since 1953. The penalties in the existing law were increased in 2008. The offence of killing, maiming, wounding, poisoning, or injuring an animal that is kept for lawful purposes, as set out in

section 445 of the Criminal Code, was used to prosecute Quanto's killer. However, the maximum sentence that may be imposed when this hybrid offence is prosecuted as an indictable offence is five years of imprisonment. The law provides that the court may, in addition to any other sentence, on application of the Attorney General or on its own motion, order that the accused pay the reasonable costs incurred in respect of the animal as a result of the commission of the offence. Finally, paragraph 738(1)(

a) of the Criminal Code authorizes the court to order the offender to pay the costs associated with training a new animal as restitution for the loss of an animal when the amount is readily ascertainable. The person who killed Quanto was sentenced to a total of 26 months' imprisonment on various charges arising out of the tragic events of October 7, 2013, of which 18 months were specifically for killing Quanto. The accused was also banned from owning a pet for 25 years. Quanto's killing was only the most recent instance in which a police service animal was killed in the course of a police operation.

Another high-profile incident involved of death of Brigadier. Brigadier was an eight-year-old Toronto police service horse killed in the line of duty in 2006. In that case, a driver in a fit of rage, while waiting in a line at a drive-through ATM machine, made a U-turn and barrelled right into the horse and the mounted officer. Both of Brigadier's front legs were broken, one so badly that he could never have recovered. The horse had to be put down.

(1030) The person who drove the car was subsequently convicted, including for dangerous driving causing bodily harm to Brigadier's mounted officer. Members of this House will be aware of the many ways law enforcement dogs assist their handlers in protecting the public. A police dog is trained specifically 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.

Law enforcement canine units, like Quanto's unit in Edmonton, are a common component of municipal police forces as well as provincial police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. When I visited the police service in my region of York, at the invitation of York Regional Police Chief Eric Jolliffe, I had the opportunity to see the canine unit at work. I was given a complete demonstration and was joined by the Minister of Justice of our country. I heard very compelling evidence and support from the police officers who are working with these animals on a daily basis.

In 1995, after an absence of 23 years, a new version of the Montreal police canine unit was established. Today this canine unit has 11 officers and 10 operational dogs. The unit supports Montreal police officers in their investigations and daily activities. It is also called upon to work on certain operations where its specialties are required. For example, the unit will co-operate with police forces throughout Quebec that do not have canine units or will work with dog handlers on other police forces during major events.

It participates in media, community, and cultural events, at schools and community meetings, and on television shows to promote the canine unit and the good work of the Montreal police service. The dogs in the Montreal police canine unit specialize in specific types of work. Some dogs have general purpose training with a specialization in narcotics detection. Other dogs have a specialization in searching buildings, and some dogs have specialized explosives detection training.

On the international front, a number of American states, such as Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon, have enacted laws making the intentional injury or killing of a police dog a felony offence and subjecting perpetrators to harsher penalties than those in the statutes embodied in local animal cruelty laws, just as an assault on a police officer may result in harsher penalties than a similar assault on a member of the public.

With respect to law enforcement horses, after they undergo special training, they may be employed for specialized duties ranging from the patrol of parks and wilderness areas, where police cars would be impractical or noisy, to riot duty, where the horse, because of its larger size, serves to intimidate those they want to disperse. Police horses provide the officers who ride them with added height and visibility, which gives their riders the ability to observe a wider area.

However, it also allows people in the wider area to see the officers, which helps deter crime and helps people find officers in those instances when they need one. This bill proposes to extend specific protection not only to law enforcement animals but to trained service animals and military animals. Service animals perform tasks that help their disabled human masters live independent lives. Most service animals are dogs, such as Seeing Eye dogs. However, other kinds of animals may be trained to be service animals. The cost associated with training a new service animal is significant.

(1035) The Canadian Armed Forces uses a variety of animals on a contracted basis as required. For example, animals assist members of the Canadian Armed Forces by sniffing for bombs. Each of these animals is required to have received specialized training that enables it to accomplish specific tasks in support of its human handler. It should also be noted that this offence only applies when the animal is killed or injured in the line of duty. Animals that do not fall within the scope of the new offence are nonetheless protected under the existing animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code. As with the existing

section 445 of the Criminal Code, the proposed offence would require the offender to have intended to kill or injure one of these animals. That way, accidental or negligent conduct would not be criminalized. Like

section 445 of the Criminal Code, the new offence would carry a maximum penalty of five years of imprisonment or indictment of 18 months and-or a fine of $10,000 on

summary conviction. However, it is important to note that the proposed amendments would also require courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence as sentencing objectives in respect of the new offence. Furthermore, we must underline that there would be a mandatory minimum of six months of imprisonment where a law enforcement animal was killed in the line of duty and the offence was prosecuted by indictment.

Bill C-35 also includes a provision that would require the sentence imposed on a person convicted of assault committed against a law enforcement officer to be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender for an offence committed at the same time. The murder of a police officer is classified as first degree murder and is punishable by life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period for parole eligibility of 25 years.

The Criminal Code specifically prohibits assaults committed against police officers in the performance of their duties for a number of offences, including subsection 270.(1), assault on a peace officer;

section 270.01, assault with a weapon or assault causing bodily harm on a peace officer; and

section 270.02, aggravated assault on a peace officer. Regrettably, data from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics adult criminal court survey reveals that there are still too many assaults on police officers in our country. From 2009-10 to 2011-12, there were a total of 31,461 charges laid under

section 270.(1), 345 charges laid under

section 270.0, and 20 charges laid under

section 270.02. In 2009, the Criminal Code was amended to require courts, when sentencing persons convicted of such assaults, to give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct. I am sure that we all recognize that such attacks not only put the lives or safety of the individual officers at risk but that they also attack and undermine the justice system more broadly.

Recognizing that the wilful killing or injuring of a law enforcement animal also undermines the justice system more broadly, the bill would require that the sentence imposed on a person convicted of the wilful killing or injuring of a law enforcement animal would be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender for an offence committed at the same time. I could go on and on about this subject.

However, I will close my remarks today by indicating that I am looking forward to the quick passage of the bill at third reading, and I sincerely hope that we can get the bill to our colleagues on the other side of the House and passed before we recess for the summer.

(1040) Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I will preface my question by indicating that the Liberal Party will be supporting this legislation. However, I am concerned that members on the other side seem to feel that every problem can be solved by an amendment to the Criminal Code. The Canadian Police Canine Association indicates that since 1965, 10 police dogs have been killed. Could the member enlighten us as to whether that is the full extent of the problem it seeks to address?

Could he also tell us whether there are any measures, other than this amendment to the Criminal Code, the government is taking to deal with this perceived problem? Mr. Costas Menegakis : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his good work on the justice committee, particularly with respect to his contribution to the debate on this piece of legislation. I also want to thank him and his party for indicating their support for this legislation.

In response to his specific question, this legislation has been introduced in recognition of the special role these animals play in contributing to the safety and well-being of Canadians. This legislation would make it an offence to kill or injure these animals. I am sure the member will agree that strengthening the sentences imposed on those who would commit such an offence is intended to denounce and deter assaults against these animals. Training these animals can cost a considerable amount of money.

This legislation would send a strong message to those who would consider harming a service animal while it is exercising its duty that there are strict penalties. That is the scope of the bill, and I think it has wide support from Canadians across this country. I have heard from many in my riding and have been the recipient of much communication from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I know how important this bill is to him.

In his speech, he mentioned that the existing Criminal Code sections require clear intent. People who commit acts of cruelty against these animals could use negligence or other defences in court. I would like him to explain whether, in his consultations, he saw the need to provide greater protection for all animals. As he already knows, the NDP will support Bill C-35 . I am wondering whether, during his consultations, he identified some gaps in the existing legislation and the sections dealing with cruelty towards other animals, such as domestic animals? (1045) [ English ] Mr. Costas Menegakis : Mr.

Speaker, I want to thank the member for her work on the justice committee and for her support and the NDP's support for this piece of legislation. The committee heard compelling evidence from witnesses from across the country, particularly from Stephen Kaye, representing the Canadian Police Canine Association; Troy Carriere, who is head of the canine unit of the Edmonton Police Service and was responsible for Quanto; and Diane Bergeron, who appeared as an individual but who has done great work on behalf of the CNIB.

Law enforcement animals deserve special recognition in light of the dangers they face daily in their efforts to enforce the law and protect Canadians in their communities. Creating an offence specifically prohibiting the killing or injuring of these animals and strengthening the sentences imposed on those who would commit such an offence would specifically denounce and deter assaults against these animals, which are, because of the work they do every day, put in danger every single day. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr.

Speaker, Quanto's law is an important step in recognizing the importance of what service animals do. I agree with my colleague from the NDP that we need better protections under the Criminal Code for animals of all types, particularly because law enforcement agents often say that if they find out that someone has been cruel to animals in a sadistic fashion, it can be a predictor of criminal behaviour. It is very important that we do more to protect all animals and act on acts of cruelty against all animals. If I have enough time, June 18 is the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo.

I wanted to share with my friend across the way the gallantry of the British cavalry. A wealthy lord sent an expedition to recover the horses of the Duke of Wellington's army and brought them back to pastures to reward them for their bravery. It was reported that they would spontaneously cease grazing, look at each other, suddenly form a line, and charge. These service animals are of a different category, and I am happy to support this law. Mr. Costas Menegakis : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the Green Party for giving us that brief history lesson today. She makes a very valid point.

These service animals are selfless. They are very courageous. Steve Kaye from the Canadian Police Canine Association said that while officers might think twice about releasing or deploying their animals, that those animals were indeed anxious and ready to go into service without fear. That speaks volumes as to the degree to which animals can protect humans, particularly peace officers. Mr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for introducing Quanto's law. It is really a marvellous thing to do and I very much appreciate it.

In my riding of Oakville, when we knocked on doors during the election, on some streets there was a dog at almost every second household. We heard them barking as soon as we hit the door. We grow so attached to animals not only because of their intelligence, but because they also give us companionship. In addition to that, a key reason that so many people in my riding have dogs is because they feel safe at night. The dog helps to guard the house. If prowlers came around or someone tried to break into the house, they would be scared off by the dog. These are noble beasts that live with us.

They have become part of our families. This high level of training and service that police dogs and horses do is a wonderful thing to behold. It is like dogs with jobs. This higher level of protection is a marvellous thing, and I congratulate the member. Does the member think that with this extra protection provided to police dogs and horses, they will be given additional duties? Will police forces be able to use them to do more, or will they keep carrying on the way they have been?

(1050) Mr. Costas Menegakis : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes a very valid point. Those of us who have pets at home know the importance of them as family pets, but there is also an element of protection that many families feel by having a dog at home. This legislation sends a very strong message to people that if they seek to hurt a police animal, or a service animal or a military animal, there are severe consequences that go along with it. It is important to note that according to the RCMP, it costs upward of $60,000 to train one of these dogs.

That is an awful lot of money to put into the training of an animal. We can appreciate the focus that police and trainers put in to training these animals. This also sends a very strong message to the police and those who have the need for a service animal that their partner has that additional protection of denunciation and deterrence from criminals. [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet (La Pointe-de-l'Île, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-35 . I am pleased to support this bill, and I think I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that all forms of animal cruelty are unacceptable.

There is no doubt that to us Bill C-35 acknowledges the importance and value of animals and especially our attachment to these animals, such as police or military dogs and horses and even service animals in general, such as dogs trained to help people with a disability or people who are visually impaired. I think it is very important to highlight the crucial role these animals play indirectly in our lives. People may not be aware, but police dogs play a very important role. The name Quanto's law is a reference to an incident that took place in Edmonton, in which a police dog named Quanto was stabbed to death.

These dogs, like Quanto himself, have played a role in many arrests and investigations. They play a role in our daily lives, and it is very important for us to be here together today to recognize the work not only of law enforcement dogs, but of service dogs who help people with disabilities on a daily basis. These animals support them, help them achieve their potential and accompany them every day. In committee, we heard very moving testimony that showed us just how close an animal and a person can become and how much we are really all alike.

In that sense, it is very important to recognize the merit of the bill, which I will explain in a little more detail. The bill creates a new Criminal Code offence: Every one commits an offence who, wilfully and without lawful excuse, kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures 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 new offence will be added to the

section of the Criminal Code on cruelty to animals. It is important to note that this provision fully recognizes that law enforcement dogs are like police officers. Many witnesses mentioned that in committee as well. Obviously, these dogs do not talk or drink coffee, but they are like police officers because they are trained to do a specific job, such as detecting drugs or tracking a kidnapped child. These animals are trained to do a job, one that police officers may not even be able to do given humans' limited sense of smell, for example.

(1055) These dogs are even trained to do some things that humans cannot do. Because of their special qualities, these animals play an extremely important role in our police forces, and so do service animals. We therefore support that clause because it is well written in that respect. However, I do want to raise one concern. Numerous organizations and experts have recommended against minimum sentences on the grounds that they do not actually reduce the crime rate. Rather, prevention, education and other approaches solve the problem upstream rather than downstream.

Unfortunately, minimum sentences never achieve the stated goal of reducing the crime rate. The courts are quite capable of judging the severity of a crime and the aggravating factors. For example, in Quanto's case, the court sentenced the accused to 26 months in prison and made sure to mention that 18 of the 26 months were punishment for having stabbed the law enforcement dog to death. The sentence in Quanto's case was two times longer than what is set out in this bill. It is clear that the courts and judges can use their discretionary power to judge aggravating factors and the gravity of an offence.

Forcing them to impose a minimum sentence removes that discretion. Nevertheless, I will conclude my aside and my criticism by saying that subclause 445.01(1) is well written. Here is the first sentence: Every one commits an offence who, wilfully and without lawful excuse... This first subsection is written so as to ensure that mandatory minimum sentencing does not apply to those who are defending themselves.

Furthermore, in committee, the witnesses said that at least that clause was written so that it will not apply in cases where people fear for their lives and have to defend themselves, which can happen in extreme situations, and those individuals will not automatically be sentenced to the mandatary minimum. This subparagraph is very well written and limits the cases that will be ultimately affected by mandatory minimum sentencing. In some situations, we do not know how people will react.

The witnesses made it clear that there are times when people fear for their lives and have to defend themselves against an aggressive animal. That clause is very well written. Adding the expression, “wilfully and without lawful excuse” means that only those who kill an animal in bad faith are targeted. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, someone could decide to drive their car straight into a police service horse. These people have an abnormal desire to kill an animal, as in the case of Quanto, where stabbing a dog to death was considered an aggravating factor.

Since that clause is actually very well written, the NDP will support the bill. However, I still wanted to raise that concern, because the Conservatives have passed many bills that amend the Criminal Code to impose mandatory minimum sentencing. This has been denounced by the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec and many other associations, including defence lawyers associations.

(1100) A number of associations are saying that, unfortunately, minimum sentences do not produce the desired effect, which is to lower crime. What is more, they add an extra burden on the provinces and the justice system. For example, last year, a Quebec justice system report noted an increase in costs associated with the number of mandatory minimum sentences. That is the case not just in Quebec, but also everywhere else, including the United States. The more mandatory minimum sentences are imposed, the heavier the financial burden on the provinces and the resources within Canada's justice system.

Unfortunately, we are entering a vicious circle that is long on delays and short on resources. There are not enough judges and crown prosecutors. I think we need to take a balanced approach when it comes to our justice system. It is important to emphasize that, even though we recognize the importance of protecting animals. That brings me to my second point. I think it is important to note that the witnesses unanimously agreed that the bill was necessary. We too often hear people talking about service animals.

As I said, we are talking not just about police or military service dogs, but also service dogs for people with a disability or with reduced mobility. The witnesses unanimously confirmed the importance of recognizing the support these animals provide in our lives and how extremely important it is to protect them. However, one witness from the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, the CFHS, said that Bill C-35 was a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, that is often the case with the Conservatives. They take a step in the right direction, but they never see things through. The fact remains that the

section on animal protection should be revised and improved to protect all domestic animals. Far too often we hear in the news about people torturing animals. Videos on YouTube and even Facebook show puppy mills and mills for other animals. There are really some very troublesome cases of animal cruelty happening. It is important to go a bit further and establish better protection for all domestic animals in the Criminal Code. That brings me to the initiatives brought forward in the House of Commons by my NDP colleagues. For example, my very hon. colleague from Parkdale—High Park introduced Bill C-232 .

I know that it is extremely important for her. She has been working very hard for many years to help protect animals and to bring this issue to Parliament's attention. I would really like to thank her for all of her hard work. Her bill, Bill C-232, would make it possible to move animals out of the property

section and create a separate

section dealing with animal cruelty. They would not be recognized as people under this legislation, but they would no longer be considered property. Animals are living creatures. Bill C-35 does this for law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals, but not for all domestic animals. My colleague's bill would address that issue and provide additional protection for animals by moving them out of the property

section of the Criminal Code and creating a

section for living creatures. Her bill would also allow the justice system to better define such situations and to deal more effectively with animal cruelty offences, which would increase the possibility of conviction for such offences.

(1105) I would also like to thank my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine . I know how much she cares about protecting all of our animals. She has worked extremely hard on this issue since she was elected. I would like to thank her for that. She also introduced Bill C-592 , which would provide a better definition of “animal” and would change the definition of “animal cruelty offence” to include the notion of intent. My colleague, the parliamentary secretary, mentioned this. Unfortunately, the notions of neglect and intent are currently unclear and remain undefined in the

section dealing with animal cruelty. This means that people who commit animal cruelty offences can use different forms of defence. We must take this step to define what constitutes intent in the

section dealing with animal cruelty offences. I thank the parliamentary secretary for the interesting statistics he shared. These figures show that this phenomenon is much more common than we think. Unfortunately, when someone pleads guilty to other offences, the animal cruelty offences are often dropped. For example, this is the case when someone pleads guilty or signs a plea bargain with the crown. These measures could also make it possible to see more convictions in cases of animal cruelty.

With respect to sentencing, I would also like to mention that in Saskatchewan, for example, the maximum sentence for animal cruelty and for injuring a law enforcement animal is two years. This bill already has a five-year maximum. Accordingly, we see the legislator's clear intent to punish those who injure, mutilate or kill law enforcement animals during the course of their everyday work. I would like to thank all the police and customs officers who work with these animals. I know how important this bill is to them. We support them in their work and now through the bill being studied.

However, I would like to reiterate the two concerns I described. It is a step in the right direction, but it would now be appropriate to go further and to update the animal protection provisions. Minimum mandatory sentences are not always necessarily the solution for preventing crimes. We will support the bill. I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his initiative and the good work he has done, which has allowed us to have this important debate in the House of Commons. On that note, I thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, and I will now be pleased to answer my colleague's questions. (1110) [ English ] Mr. Costas Menegakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her passionate speech in support of the legislation and for pointing out the importance of this legislation to support service animals. Did the member hear the story just a couple of days ago where a blind person was crossing a street in the United States and an oncoming car, being driven at speed, was not able to stop in time?

The service animal, a dog, jumped in front of his partner, the blind person, to protect the person. The car hit them both. Thankfully, they both survived, but that is an example of what the animal did at a time when the dog itself was in danger. He saw the car coming and jumped between the car and the person to protect the person. It just speaks to the need to put in this legislation to recognize that special service that these animals provide to human beings every day, police officers, people with disabilities and so forth.

I wonder if the member opposite can share with us if she has heard from her constituents how they feel about this legislation and about putting in legislation that would further protect animals, particularly those that are put in service by us. [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet : Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question. Indeed, I did hear about this story. He really got to the heart of this debate: these animals play a crucial role in our everyday lives. Law enforcement animals are responsible for many arrests, and other service animals are also indispensable, as he has shown.

People are quite concerned about protecting animals. We are so attached to them. As I said, they should not be considered property in the Criminal Code of Canada. They should be considered living creatures. They are our colleagues and our friends, and we are with them every day. The people of La Pointe-de-l'Île care very much about protecting animals. I spoke to a number of people about the fact that we need to enact legislation to better protect our companion and service animals. As my colleague showed, service animals are living creatures that care only about helping the people they serve, not themselves.

That is a quality that all of us here in the House of Commons should have. Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I obviously congratulate the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine for her bill. It is a copy of the bill that was introduced in the House by former Liberal MP Mark Holland. Does the member realize that her party is trying to scrap this bill? The bill has been on the order paper and the

schedule of debate for months and months, and each time the date for debate approaches, the bill gets bumped. As of right now, it will be debated for the first time on June 19, so it is too late to get it passed. Ms. Ève Péclet : Mr. Speaker, it is so typical of the Liberals to play partisan politics with an issue as important as animal welfare. I spoke for 20 minutes about the importance of protecting animals and the importance that the NDP places on this issue. However, the only thing that the member could think of doing is belittle me, belittle my party and disparage my colleague's efforts.

I just wanted to say that I find that completely unacceptable. My colleague stands there and wants to play partisan politics with a bill that the House is going to pass unanimously. Surely, he must have something better to do. Perhaps he should stand up and defend animals and say how unacceptable cruelty to animals is, instead of belittling the NDP, as the Liberals love to do.

(1115) Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for her speech, which I listened to carefully and which is especially meaningful now, since Quebec recently introduced a similar bill regarding animal welfare. Obviously, I do not by any means oppose this bill, and of course I will vote to support it. However, there is one thing that concerns me about this bill, because, once again, the Conservatives are bringing in more mandatory minimum sentences.

I wish to take advantage of my colleague's expertise as a member and as a lawyer to ask her whether this is another example of the Conservatives' tendency to confuse the legislative and judicial branches. Ms. Ève Péclet : Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, when the government repeatedly removes the discretion of judges and the courts to judge specific circumstances and the relative gravity of an offence, that removes to some degree the power of the judicial system to make judgments.

Mandatory minimum sentences prevent the courts from making appropriate decisions and striking a balance among several aggravating factors and the gravity of the offence. More and more mandatory minimum sentences are making their way into the Criminal Code, something that has been criticized by many groups. Even in the United States, state governors in Texas and other extremely Republican states are reconsidering their mandatory minimum sentence policies. They say those policies do not work, cost too much and do not change a thing.

It is obvious that we need a balanced approach because, unfortunately, there is no evidence that mandatory minimum sentences reduce the crime rate. It might be time to do a study or take an overall look at what we can really do to address this problem upstream rather than downstream when it is too late. We would prefer that people not commit crimes, but mandatory minimum sentences are not the way to go. [ English ] Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, the bill, as I understand it, would protect all forms of service dogs, both service dogs in the forces of law enforcement, but also service dogs that are helping persons with disabilities, such as the blind, persons who use dogs as therapy, et cetera. We really appreciate the fact that the government is trying to protect these animals, but we are concerned that the use of mandatory minimums, as always, goes too far with the current government. It could, in fact, result in judges being unable to hand down convictions because they realize the mandatory minimum would in fact be too harsh a penalty.

Would the member like to comment? [ Translation ] Ms. Ève Péclet : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question. I know how important matters related to persons with disabilities are to him. Diane Bergeron from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind came to committee to testify and said how extremely important the bill is to her because it acknowledges the value of service animals for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility. To her, it is essential that we finally recognize how important these animals are to people's daily lives.

As the hon. member said in the second part of his question, the problem that often comes up in animal cruelty cases is that these offences are withdrawn when there is an agreement between the Crown and the defence lawyers. Offenders often are not prosecuted because the offences are considered less serious than others. Mandatory minimum sentences could cause a problem. If an agreement is made, a person will agree to plead guilty to some offences, but not to animal cruelty offences because they come with a minimum sentence. As I said, we should take a balanced approach to animal cruelty offences.

We must ensure that there are more convictions and not prevent convictions. (1120) [ English ] Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I request the consent of the House to share my time with the eloquent and hard-working member of Parliament for Malpeque. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Does the hon. member for Charlottetown have the unanimous consent of the House to split his time with the aforementioned member? Some hon. members: Agreed. Mr. Sean Casey : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for that accommodation.

I rise today to speak on Bill C-35 , justice for animals in service act (Quanto's law). As members know, Bill C-35 is commonly referred to as Quanto's law, after an Edmonton police service dog was killed in the line of duty in 2013. In response to that incident, this bill makes it a specific criminal offence to injure or kill a law enforcement, military or service animal. The Liberals will vote for Quanto's law. We support providing additional protection to law enforcement, military and service animals. They provide tremendous service to society and require significant investment in training.

At committee, we heard it was $40,000 for a police dog. These animals deserve the full protection of the law, which in the case of police dogs and horses, they assist in upholding. Any attack on a law enforcement animal is an attack on law enforcement. Parliament must rightly denounce such affronts to our system of law and order. That last point, the purpose of this specific crime, is the main distinction between Quanto's law and our current animal cruelty laws in

Section 445(1) of the Criminal Code. A conviction under Quanto's law or the animal cruelty

section carries the same maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. However, morally and legally, language makes a meaningful difference. A conviction under Quanto's law will carry a special stigma for offenders. We know this because of the outpouring of public condemnation when these incidents occur. At committee, we heard of this bill's importance to stakeholders. Staff Sergeant Troy Carriere joined us from the Canine and Flight Operations

Section of the Edmonton Police Service. He described the stabbing death of Quanto after that police dog was deployed to pursue a suspect, Paul Vukmanich, who had fled on foot from a stolen vehicle and turned out to be wanted on a warrant for armed robbery. Staff Sergeant Carriere also described the public response to Quanta's death. There was overwhelming response and support from the community and other policing agencies from across Canada. This tragic event struck a public nerve that, in my 22 years of policing, I have never been witness to. Quanta's death resulted in a charge of animal cruelty.

That conviction, together with other charges, resulted in a sentence of 26 months for the offender. However, as we heard at committee and in debate earlier today, 18 months of the sentence were for Quanta's death. That is an important point when we're talking about the penalty provisions in Bill C-35 that I will return to. The committee also heard from Stephen Kaye, president of the Canadian Police Canine Association, whose own police service dog was shot and killed in 2001. He described the place of law enforcement animals in society in terms that I would like to share with this Chamber.

He said: To suggest that law enforcement has become dependent on these uniquely specialized creatures is simply an understatement. They have become as public a servant and ambassador for us as has any human member or officer. Some people may not care very much for the police, but a service dog always draws a crowd and much attention at public presentations. The committee also heard from Barbara Cartwright, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. Ms.

Cartwright informed us that many other jurisdictions have greater protection for police and military animals, including some U.S. jurisdictions, where the intentional injuring or killing of a police dog is a felony. I would be remiss not to mention the excellent testimony of Diane Bergeron, who is blind and appeared with her guide dog Lucy. Ms. Bergeron had a very moving personal tribute on how much she owes to her guide dogs over the years. She said: I have gone skydiving, rappelled down the outside of the Sutton Place Hotel in Edmonton, 29 stories ... 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. None of this would have been possible without the starting dog of Clyde. 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. These stories are really what Quanto's law is about, a statement from the Parliament of Canada on the value of the animals that serve our society so well.

We were reminded of their service by a story out of the U.S. a couple of weeks ago.

(1125) In Mississippi, three men attacked a sheriff's deputy and slashed him with a box cutter. Fortunately, the deputy was able to activate a button that opened the door to his vehicle, releasing his service dog, which bit and repelled the suspects. Really it was quite amazing and there are many stories of this kind of devotion from service animals. However, in supporting the bill, I do not want to overstate the magnitude of this problem or the frequency of attacks on these animals.

At committee we were not able to get a reliable number on injuries to service animals, but the Canadian Police Canine Association indicated that 10 police dogs were killed in the line of duty between 1965 and 2013, with three of those occurring in the last decade. While the bill is a worthwhile improvement to our criminal law, it does not respond to a trend and is more driven by a particular incident than evidence about where government attention is required. While Liberals support the bill, we want to emphasize our strong objection to the government's policies on criminal justice in general.

One reason comes up when we look at the specific provisions of the bill. As I said, Bill C-35 creates a specific offence for injuring or killing a law enforcement, military or service animal. On

summary conviction the penalty is a maximum fine of $10,000 or 18 months in prison, or both. On indictment, the maximum penalty is five years with a minimum punishment of six months in prison. Bill C-35 also amends the code to require sentences for assaults on law enforcement officers to be served consecutively to punishments for offences committed in the same course of events. The one provision that caused me pause was the mandatory minimum penalty on indictment as it is in the best interests of society to preserve judicial discretion to tailor particular sentences to particular crimes. However, legitimate concerns are mitigated by the fact that the offence has a

summary procedure avenue without the minimum penalty. It is also relevant that in Quanto's death the judge gave 18 months specifically for the killing of that service animal. We should expect to see similar sentences handed down across the country for these types of incidents on the principle that similar crimes deserve similar penalties and 6 months is well below the 18 months in that case. Therefore, this mandatory minimum is less offensive than most. Finally, I want to end on a philosophical note.

In considering Bill C-35 , one issue that I thought about is whether the purpose of this law is to protect these animals merely because of the value they provide to humans. Certainly that is the perspective the Minister of Justice emphasized at committee. I wonder whether the legal purpose of protecting animals is not also because they have some value for their own sake. I think that members of the House would agree that animals do have value independent of our use of them.

As a Liberal, I believe that all animals deserve to be treated humanely and that federal animal cruelty laws should be informed by the best scientific evidence available. I also believe that treating animals humanely is consistent with important cultural and economic practices like farming, ranching, fishing and hunting. That would include a humane, regulated seal hunt that takes into account the interests of affected communities.

As we pass Quanto's law and reflect on the value of service animals, we might also pause and think whether the principles underlying the bill should have other progressive legal applications in the future.

(1130) Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Charlottetown's remarks. He was able to attend the hearings on the bill at committee. During those hearings one of the things the member and others mentioned is that there is an impact through sentencing, by making the sentencing for the killing of a service animal consecutive with other sentences. Did the member get any opinion from those hearings, either from the justice minister or other legal officials, whether that in fact would stand up if there were a court challenge on the matter in terms of mandatory sentencing? Mr.

Sean Casey : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and fellow Prince Edward Islander for that question. The minister was asked at committee about constitutional review of the bill and, quite frankly, the question was not answered directly. What has been emphasized by witnesses through the committee process was the very point I made in my speech.

That is, in the most recent case involving a conviction for animal cruelty in the circumstances of the killing of a service dog, there was a global penalty of 26 months, and the judge in that case specifically said that 18 months of the sentence were applicable to the killing of the service dog. There are two features to the mandatory minimum in Quanto's law. One is that it is a hybrid offence, so the mandatory minimum only applies where the crown decides to proceed by indictment.

The second is that the mandatory minimum penalty is six months, which is significantly less than the 18 months that was imposed under the animal cruelty laws in the most recent case. Although we did not receive any expert legal opinion at committee, those circumstances would indicate that this is likely either to withstand a challenge or to not be subject to a challenge because of those circumstances. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is to emphasize the important work service dogs provide. We can talk about Canada Border Services or law enforcement agencies.

I have had the opportunity to witness first hand just how much our security personnel and others depend on and are proud of their animals. They, in essence, become their partners. Perhaps the member could provide some further comment as to the true value of these wonderful dogs that contribute in many positive ways to our communities. Mr. Sean Casey : Mr. Speaker, this brings back to me the testimony we heard at committee. We heard from two police officers. One was practically moved to tears when he talked about the attack on the police dog that was his partner. We also heard a very inspirational story from Ms.

Bergeron, who has truly been given a new lease on life and has accomplished some amazing things as a result of her service dog. The testimony at committee was extremely compelling. That is truly indicative of the relationship that exists, the bond that exists, between service dogs and their handlers. It is something that is emotional and inspirational, and it deserves recognition from Parliament through this legislation.

(1135) Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to split time in debates in the House with my colleague from Charlottetown , who is the critic for justice within the Liberal Party. I know it was a difficult negotiation in terms of getting unanimous agreement to split time, especially with the NDP, but we appreciate the fact that those members agreed. I am pleased to speak on the third reading of Bill C-35 ,

an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to law enforcement animals, military animals, and service animals. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to make it a specific offence to injure or kill a law enforcement, military, or service animal. It would also amend the code to require that sentences for assault on law enforcement officers be served consecutively to punishment for offences committed in the same course of events.

Bill C-35 is an important bill that, to a great extent, recognizes the duty and dedication of animals in doing assigned jobs, whether they be service, military, or law enforcement animals. The loyalty of those animals creates a strong bond between the handler, who I would call the partner, and the service animal itself. I know that quite a number of people in the House have seen that bond and loyalty. The true dedication to their job, to their duty, and especially to their partner that these service animals give is really something to behold.

I mentioned in earlier remarks that the member for Richmond Hill and I were together in Israel, as was the member for Winnipeg North . While we were there, we saw military service dogs at work, going through vehicles and sniffing the bumpers to see whether there were guns, ammunition, or explosives. It was interesting to see how those animals work and how sensitive they are to be able to find a small bit of explosive within the frame or bumper of a car. We also saw those military service dogs track down people at the border who came into the country illegally for terrorist purposes.

These animals are so important in so many ways. Here at home, I have had the opportunity, while a minister in a previous government, to see how Canada Border Services Agency and police service dogs worked. I would expect most people here have seen them at airports. They can quickly run across baggage coming off the belt and immediately detect contraband or drugs that might be in luggage. As well, we sometimes see a Canada Border Services agent or police officer with a dog on a leash walking through the crowd. They, too, are doing that kind of job.

Therefore, service animals are an extremely important part of our security apparatus and policing system within Canada.

(1140) When we see these service dogs with people who are blind, and we see how they work and how dedicated they are to their master in that case, we see that they provide a tremendous function to Canadian society. This bill would give those dogs a bit of protection as a result of this new law. Because of the purpose of these service animals and the duty and dedication they provide to those who handle them, and which they really provide to Canadian society, we need to ensure that they have protection under the law.

As my colleague from Charlottetown stated, the origin of the bill was the death of a police service dog, Quanto, with the Edmonton police force. The justice committee held hearings and heard from the Edmonton Police Service about that particular animal's death and how important that dog was to the Edmonton police. It is actually becoming increasingly common for criminal sanctions to be imposed on those people who harm service animals in other jurisdictions, and the reasoning is basically the same.

These animals provide a service for which they are injected into often dangerous situations, as is the case of police and military animals. As I stated, in the second reading debate, it is important to place the legislation in context. In the course of the past 48 years, only 10 police dogs have been killed in the line of duty, and 10 is certainly way too many. The RCMP, Canada Border Services Agency and Correctional Service Canada have roughly 310 dogs in service. The point being that the scale of the offence is not as significant as the government has been implying.

However, that does not minimize the fact that the protection of service animals should be acted upon. I want to make a point on the offence not being as significant as the government has implied. We have had 10 long difficult years of the government. We have seen that it is prone to exaggeration and, as a result, is prone to imposing excessive penalties. While it does that within the law, what we are becoming increasingly concerned about is this. It passes a law but it does not apply the appropriate funding so the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency, CSIS and others so they have the ability to do the job.

Right now there are charges under the Canada Labour Code against the RCMP for not providing suitable equipment and training in Moncton, New Brunswick. While the government may pass a law, the fact it does not provide the necessary funding really complicates matters. The government has to find balance. Instead of exaggerating the need, it needs to apply the resources, whether for service dogs, officers, training or equipment, so the personnel can actually do its job.

The legislation proposes Criminal Code amendments that would create a new offence specifically to prohibit the injuring or killing of animals trained and being used to help law enforcement officers, persons with a disability or the Canadian Armed Forces. The U.S. Federal Law Enforcement Animal Protection Act does much the same thing. However, under the U.S. provision, there is no consecutive sentencing provisions nor mandatory minimums as is being proposed under this legislation. The offences against law enforcement service animals are treated as a stand-alone violation. It is important to make that point.

As my colleague said, we will be supporting the legislation. It is needed and is justifiable. Our concern is that once again the government is creating a sense of crisis that is not to the extent it portrays. However, we will support this law. There was a reasonable committee hearing process. I hope others in this chamber do as well.

(1145) Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the member and I shared membership on the public safety and national security committee. He has perpetrated and said things that are not quite founded in fact. This government, the Government of Canada, has increased funding to the Canada Border Services Agency to increase the number of people. As far as the RCMP goes, its budget has been significantly increased over the years of this government. As we get closer to an election, he become so pathetically partisan.

Perhaps the member is afraid of losing his seat, although I do not think he has to worry much. The Liberals say that this is the worst possible legislation, that it is bad, that the government is bad, and that there is not enough money. They take a terrible tragedy and make a political partisan comment on it. If it is that bad, then he should not vote for it. However, he should stop saying things that are just not accurate. My fellow member does not have to do that. He should try to be a bit more collegial as we end the 41st Parliament and try to find it in his heart to say something positive for a change. Hon.

Wayne Easter : I am always collegial, Mr. Speaker. The member for Northumberland—Quinte West really gets somewhat agitated when we lay the facts on the table with respect to what the government is really doing. I am pleased we are having this debate, but the member has to get away from the speaking points that the Prime Minister's Office shoves at those members. He might want to look at doing a bit of independent research. We said we supported the bill, but do the Conservatives really need to include mandatory minimums in the bill as well?

One of the problems with the government is that it gets a little excessive. It exaggerates the problem and then gets excessive with the penalty. Let me use one fact. The funding for the RCMP was cut in budget 2012. While the House did budget money to the RCMP in 2013, the minister quietly asked the commissioner for a little to be kicked back to the government and the RCMP did that. As a result, the rank and file has been complaining about the the equipment and training it needs. That fact has to be expressed, and I will continue to express it. Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, I will try to bring the conversation back to the bill at hand. At committee we heard from Barbara Cartwright of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. She indicated that the existing animal cruelty laws were ineffective in part because of the words “wilful negligence” and the difficulty in proving wilful negligence as a barrier to effective prosecution in animal cruelty cases. In spite of that evidence, in this bill the government has decided to include the world “wilful” in the key clause that deals with the killing of a service animal.

Would the member agree with me that the government's insistence on including that word will make the legislation less effective and will result in it having the same problems as those in the present animal cruelty laws?

(1150) Hon. Wayne Easter : Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question that what the member for Charlottetown has said is true. That is what witnesses said before committee. Putting the qualifier “wilful” in the legislation is such a narrow qualifier that it will make it much more difficult for the prosecution to attain success at trial. It is again part of the government's history. If amendments are proposed by either witnesses or opposition parties at committee stage, the government for whatever reason will not take that advice.

That is one of the reasons why the government has seen so many legislative measures turned back by the courts. The government needs to learn that we are all part of this place, that we all have ideas, and that amendments made by opposition members at committees can make bills better. The government has again fallen short with respect to this bill. Mr. Robert Goguen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women .

I would like to begin my remarks today by acknowledging the broad support Bill C-35 has had, the justice for animals in service act. It has received support not only in the House, but also from Canadians across the country. Commonly referred to as Quanto's law, this bill is evidence of the government's continuing commitment to bring forward criminal justice legislation that would contribute to making Canadian communities safer.

By way of background, it should be noted that the Criminal Code has contained offences relating to the treatment of animals since 1893, and the current set of offences has existed since 1953. The penalties in the existing law were increased in 2008. Currently, an offence is committed under

section 445 of the Criminal Code when someone wilfully and without lawful excuse kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures an animal other than cattle. The maximum sentence that may be imposed when this hybrid offence is prosecuted as an indictable offence is five years imprisonment. As well, paragraph 738(1)(

a) of the Criminal Code authorizes the court to order the offender to pay the costs associated with training a new animal as restitution for the loss of the animal where the amount is readily ascertainable. [ Translation ] As many members know, Quanto was an Edmonton police dog who was stabbed to death on October 7, 2013, while he was helping to apprehend a suspect. The person who killed Quanto was later convicted under

section 445 of the Criminal Code for deliberately killing a dog and for other offences resulting from the incident that occurred on October 7, 2013. This man was sentenced to a total of 26 months in prison, and the judge who sentenced him specifically said that 18 months of that sentence was for killing Quanto.

He said that this was not just an attack on a dog. “It's an attack on [our] society and it's an attack on what's meaningful in society.” [ English ] The tragic death of this law enforcement animal struck a chord with a lot of Canadians and many in the law enforcement, legal and community groups called for greater recognition and protection of service animals. [ Translation ] Bill C-35 is the government's response to the commitment made in the 2013 Speech from the Throne to pass legislation such as this in order to recognize the risks taken by the animals used by the police to help enforce the law and protect society. (1155) [ English ] Dogs like Quanto have been employed by Canadian law enforcement agencies for many years.

Sadly, from time to time, some of these law enforcement animals have been intentionally injured or killed by criminals in the course of police operations. The loss of such highly trained and motivated members of a law enforcement team not only has a direct operational impact on its ability to protect the community, it has significant financial implications for the affected police service. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has estimated that the cost to train a police dog and its handler as a team is in excess of $60,000.

The government believes that the creation of a specific Criminal Code offence that includes a specially tailored sentencing regime would contribute to the denunciation as well as deterrence, both general and specific, of such crimes in the future. Bill C-35 proposes the creation of a new specific hybrid offence of killing or injuring a law enforcement animal, a service animal or a military animal. These three terms are defined for the purposes of the new offence. The objective of the amendment is to denounce and deter this conduct.

A law enforcement animal would be a dog or horse which has been trained to aid law enforcement officers in carrying out their law enforcement duties. A service animal would include an animal that has been trained to perform tasks that assist people with disabilities. This would include, for example, guide dogs for persons who are blind or have reduced vision and dogs trained to assist persons suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. A military animal would include an animal trained to aid a member of the Canadian Armed Forces in carrying out his or her duties.

The proposed sentencing regime for this new offence will be similar to the existing regime of the Criminal Code offence for killing or injuring an animal in

section 445, but with the following enhancements. First, Bill C-35 proposes that the Criminal Code be amended to provide that denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives in respect of such offences. Second, where a law enforcement animal is killed in the line of duty and the offence was prosecuted by indictment, there will be a mandatory minimum penalty of six months imprisonment. Third and finally, if the offence is committed against a law enforcement animal, the sentence would be served consecutively to any other sentence arising out of the same event.

I would like to say something more with respect to the second and third enhancements, the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, and the consecutive sentencing. During the second reading debate of Bill C-35 , there were questions raised regarding the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum penalty of six months' imprisonment that would apply to the new offence of killing a law enforcement animal that was assisting a law enforcement officer in carrying out his or her duties.

The government's position remains that the mandatory minimum penalty imposed by Bill C-35 would not result in the imposition of a grossly disproportionate sentence that could be found to be cruel and unusual punishment punishment under the charter. If this provision is challenged, the government will vigorously defend its constitutionality.

The requirement that the sentence imposed upon an offender convicted of the new offence of killing or injuring a law enforcement animal, a service animal, or a military animal be served consecutively to any other sentence that might be imposed on the offender arising out of the same series of events is also justifiable.

Our law recognizes that in certain circumstances, the nature of an offence committed is so serious and distinct that it requires the imposition of a consecutive sentence in order to properly denounce and deter such conduct, even though the offence might be committed as part of the same events or series of events. Bill C-35 is consistent with this existing approach. Bill C-35 would enhance the protection of law enforcement officers through the addition of a

section 270.03 to the Criminal Code. Henceforth, the law would require that the sentence imposed on a person convicted of committing an assault on a law enforcement officer, an assault causing bodily harm or with a weapon on a law enforcement officer, or an aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer be served consecutively to any other sentence that might be imposed on the offender arising out of the same series of events. In closing, I call on all members to support this bill. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

It goes without saying that no one can oppose such a bill. Obviously, we all get emotional when we hear stories about service animals. However, why did the government not go one step further with this bill and recognize that animals are not property? For many people, some of whom live alone, a pet is also a sort of service animal, since they have an emotional connection with it.

(1200) Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr. Speaker, the bill is definitely a step in the right direction, a direction mentioned in the hon. member's question. However, with respect to animal protection, we must also consider and respect provincial jurisdictions. Ideally, if we want to work with the provinces, there must be greater consultation and they must agree. [ English ] Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear my colleague say that the government will vigorously defend any claim of unconstitutionality with respect to the mandatory minimum sentences contained in the bill.

My first question is somewhat rhetorical: how that is working for the government so far? My other question relates to a discussion that we had at committee with respect to the lawful excuse defence. Within the Criminal Code, there is a lawful excuse defence that applies to Quanto's law. However, there was a new lawful excuse defence inserted into the Quanto's law bill that the officials from the Department of Justice said was redundant. Can the parliamentary secretary explain and defend the reason for inserting into Quanto's law a redundant provision with respect to lawful excuse? Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr.

Speaker, I was under the impression that this speech dealt with protecting law enforcement animals. It was not intended to be a dog's breakfast. We are actually doing pretty well in the constitutional realm. We do, of course, defend all our laws vigorously on a constitutional basis.

With regard to the essence of the offence, it was explained by one of the members of the committee who used to be an RCMP dog handler that when a dog is released to apprehend an offender, there is always the warning “I am letting the dog go.” In essence, when the dog is released, the offender knows that he or she is about to be attacked by the dog. The intent is that there not be an additional mental element inflicted upon the crown to try to prove.

The RCMP always advises the offender that the dog is going to be released, so it is not necessary to have this wilful and specific intention available as a defence when the offenders are often advised that the dog is coming. [ Translation ] Mr. Dany Morin (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to the question posed by my NDP colleague from Trois-Rivières .

Although we recognize that this bill is a step in the right direction, my colleague asked why the Conservative government did not go further and protect all animals, thus sending a clear message that the abuse or killing of a companion animal, whether our own or our neighbour's, is unacceptable. The federal government has at its disposal the Criminal Code of Canada, which is outside the provincial realm. I obviously hope that if a bill were brought forward, there would be discussions with the provinces.

Why is the Conservative government not interested in making the abuse or killing of an animal illegal and a Criminal Code offence? Mr. Robert Goguen : Mr. Speaker, I believe that the majority of Canadians would be open to possible changes with respect to animal abuse. In this case, however, we wanted to protect animals used in a very specific context. That does not preclude changes in the future. We know that many Canadians love animals. It remains to be seen. That said, we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. [ English ] Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : 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.

(1205) 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. (1210) [ Translation ] Mr.

Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP) : 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? [ English ] Mrs. Susan Truppe : 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. Mr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC) : 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? Mrs. Susan Truppe : 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 help