1 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 132 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Monday, October 27, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 27, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 132 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 132 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 132 (Version officielle) 147 132 27 10 2014 2014/10/27 11:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2 The House met at 11 a.m.

Prayers PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Private Members' Business (1105) [ English ] Canada Elections Act On the Order: Private Members' Business October 16, 2013—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of Bill C-524,

An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (election advertising)—Mr. Kevin Lamoureux. The Speaker : The hon. member for Winnipeg North is not present to move the order as announced in today's notice paper. Accordingly, the item will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

Suspension of Sitting The Speaker : We will suspend until 12 o'clock. (The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:05 a.m.)

Sitting Resumed (The House resumed at 12 p.m.) GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders (1200) [ English ] Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law) The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-35,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-35. Second reading Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-35 , also known as Quanto's law. It would amend the Criminal Code regarding law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals. I support the bill at second reading, though I hope that some work will be done to it in committee.

First of all, it would be remiss of me if I did not acknowledge what happened last Wednesday and what it felt like to be back in my riding over the weekend. I can tell members that wherever I went in my riding, people were deeply concerned. They were very thankful for our safety, but they were also very sad about Corporal Nathan Cirillo. For many of them, to see their MP back in their riding and back doing the work of Parliament gave them a certain amount of reassurance. I remember talking to some constituents about other MPs as well.

Many of the constituents expressed that it was good that we were not going to let what happened last Wednesday make us take drastic steps. We should let the authorities do their work and the investigation, and we need a very measured response to what happened. Absolutely, we need to review things, but right now, we are thinking of Corporal Cirillo. We are also thinking of his six-year-old son, his family and his friends. I also want to acknowledge our heartfelt gratitude to all of the men and women in uniform in our building here, and those who came in, who risked their lives.

They put themselves in harm's way in order to ensure the safety not only of the MPs but of the young children visiting and the other members of the public and the staff on the Hill as well. It is these kinds of tragedies that remind us that Canada is a multicultural nation. It is a nation that loves. For me, I was so touched this weekend, because for so many people, that is what it was about. Let us not look at our neighbours with different sets of eyes. Let us just hold hands and get through this together. I felt that over and over again.

Many of the religious places helped, whether they were a masjid, or mosque as many of us would say, a gurdwara, a mandir, or a church. Many held prayers over the weekend. Once again, they were prayers of gratitude and prayers acknowledging what has happened. People were praying that we continue to be the peaceful nation that we are, that we continue to love as we have always done, and that we continue to be inclusive.

It would have felt strange if I had not said a few of those things today in light of what happened last week, but as we are here to do the business of the people and debate the bill, I will get back to talking about this particular piece of legislation. As we all know, this legislation is now being labelled as “Quanto's law”, which is in memory of the Edmonton Police Service dog that was stabbed to death while trying to stop a fleeing suspect in October 2013. Paul Joseph Vukmanich pleaded guilty to animal cruelty and other offences, including evading the police.

He was sentenced to 26 months in prison and banned from owning a pet for 25 years. We all know the important role that enforcement animals, military animals and service animals play, and we are all very concerned when any harm is done to them deliberately. It is because of this that the bill is here.

(1205) Having come from a family that has had dogs for many years, since the kids were little, it is very hard for me, and I think for many of us in this room, to imagine how someone could attack a dog or any other service animal. However, it does happen. When I was telling my grandchildren that we would be debating the bill, my granddaughter's reaction was, “Why is it only for law enforcement animals?”, so I explained the background of the bill to her. Of course, she still cries about Buddy, who passed away a while ago, every time she looks at her photos. Our pets are very close to us.

However, we have some concerns with Bill C-35 , even though we are supporting sending it to committee. Once again, our concerns point to something we have seen all too often. When we see a piece of legislation come forward, it does not matter what it purports to do, because when one looks at the details, there is always a little twist in there that makes it more difficult for us to see what it would entail. However, there are two areas of the bill that cause us major concern, and it will not be news to anybody, because I have expressed concern about minimum and consecutive sentences before.

The introduction of minimum and consecutive sentences causes us great concern, and we will bring amendments at the committee stage. I am hoping, unlike in the past, that we will see a certain level of co-operation from the government side so that we can address the legislation in the way that parliamentarians are supposed to in a democracy. The opposition at committee stage and in the House plays a critical role in pointing out flaws in a bill, and a good government, one that believes in democracy and the parliamentary process, would heed some of that input, accept amendments and then have a robust debate.

What would Bill C-35 do? Concretely, the bill would amend

section 445 of the Criminal Code. It would create a new offence for killing or injuring a service animal, law enforcement animal or military animal while the animal is on duty. It would set a minimum sentence of six months if a law enforcement animal is killed while an offence is being perpetrated, and it would provide for the sentence imposed on a person to be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events. Members can see the difficulties we have with the bill, which are points two and three that I just made.

As in much of the legislation that has come from across the way, including omnibus legislation, which is usually thicker than the phone books in most municipalities in the country, the devil is always in the details. I have to express my deep concern that here we have a laudable bill that could have gone through with much speed, although the government across the way has other ways to achieve that speed. However, the bill could have gone through, but it has been tainted by the introduction of minimum sentencing, which clearly reflects the repressive agenda that the government is bringing forward.

Once again, it would tie the hands of our judiciary, and once again it would have the legislative branch hampering the work and independence of the judiciary.

(1210) Even before the judge in question or a jury hear the case, the sentence has been predetermined, and that is disconcerting. The sentence may have happened anyway, or it might have even been a longer sentence, but once again it takes away the judiciary's discretion. I want my colleagues across the way to think seriously about the consequences of minimum and consecutive sentencing on the criminal justice system. If crime could be solved just by putting people in prison, then the U.S. would have no crime today. Many states spend more on prisons than on many of their other programs.

If just putting somebody in prison could solve the issue, then the U.S. would be crime free. We hear about overcrowding in our prisons. We have heard testimony to that end with regard to another bill. That creates a concern as well. My major concern is that we would be tying the hands of the judiciary. We would be taking away the jobs of those who are appointed to make judgments. Hope springs eternal, in me at least, and I am sure in many of us. I am still hopeful that the government will not use many of the tools that it has used before to silence debate in the House.

Legislation has been sent to committees where no witnesses have been heard, and I am talking about a major piece of legislation that would have redefined citizenship. The government's majority on the committee used bullying tactics and time allocation to make sure the legislation was pushed through without hearing from any expert witnesses. A closure motion was brought forward only last week. My colleagues across the way seem to feel that time allocation is the way that they have to do business. I find that disconcerting.

I am hopeful that when we look at legislation now, especially after last week, that we realize we are here to represent our constituents. When we debate bills here, all of us, no matter whether we are independents, Conservative, NDP, or Liberal, have a contribution to make. Every one of us is here to represent our constituents. Every one of us wants legislation passed through the House that has had due diligence, proper oversight, and that will not be open to all kinds of other challenges. I grew up with in England with a saying that sometimes people can be “penny wise and pound foolish”.

I think of that saying often, as we rush through legislation that ends up being challenged in the courts and costing Canadian taxpayers a huge amount of money. I think of that when laws are passed that make no sense and take away people's rights. My colleagues and I support this legislation at second reading, but we do have major concerns. We want to hear from witnesses and we want to express those concerns. We will definitely be bringing forward amendments.

I would love to have a bill go through all stages in a respectful manner, and being respectful does not mean just sitting here; it means listening and responding to the issues that are raised.

(1215) There is already legislation in place and fines set out, in

section 445 of the Criminal Code, for all animals other than cattle. That is already there. Therefore, we can reassure our families and friends who have cats, dogs, or other pets, that there is already legislation in place. This is an amendment to that legislation, which specifically targets service, enforcement, and military animals. It is there for a reason. We have legislation when a crime is committed against RCMP officers or the military while they are on duty, and this is to parallel that. It is no surprise that there are forces and police departments across this country who may be supporting this bill.

I know that the Edmonton Police Service does support the bill, and it is fair to assume that there are others who support it too. I support this bill because it is good to have legislation that is very explicit. However, as I said earlier, I do have some concerns. I would like to quote Staff Sergeant Trevor Hermanutz of the Edmonton Police Service canine unit, who said that officers are pleased with the law.

He stated: We know that now we have a law that is going to put some teeth to the matter—the fact that when people want to injure or kill law enforcement animals, there are some serious legal consequences to their actions.... I would advise members, and the numbers may have changed since I read this document, that the RCMP currently has 157 police dogs in service across Canada. The Canada Border Services Agency has 53 dog and handler teams. We are not talking about thousands of animals, but there is definitely a number that is over 200.

There is not a person in this House, it does not matter which side, who in any way condones animal cruelty. I can say on behalf of my colleagues that we condemn all forms of animal cruelty. That is a position we have supported for a long time. It is reflected in Bill C-232 and Bill C-592 . At the same time that we condemn that cruelty, we are also very cautious. We have been bitten one too many times, I suppose. The Conservatives, my colleagues across the way, always manage to put some zingers in the bills that they introduce. Sometimes I wonder if those zingers are to see whether we would oppose the bill.

However, this time I am seriously hoping that they will look at our concerns at committee stage and assist us in adding some amendments. I want to say again that we support this bill. However, there are two things that we do have serious concerns with and which I will reiterate; they are the minimum sentences and the consecutive sentences. We are looking forward to hearing expert witnesses, but not one or two witnesses being given to the opposition and then the government saying it is done. We want a robust debate.

This is an opportunity for us to discuss minimum sentencing, its impact on the system, and how it impacts the role of the judiciary.

(1220) Hon. Michelle Rempel (Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this piece of legislation is widely supported across a wide variety of stakeholder groups and that it is seeking to impose stiffer penalties for those who would harm or kill service animals in the line of duty. It is something that I think all of us support here. We certainly heard that support from my colleagues in the NDP.

My colleague across the way mentioned that she is looking forward to a full debate in committee, to having a full set of witnesses, and to discussing potential amendments. This particular line of inquiry happens at committee stage. Given that my colleague and her colleagues have expressed support and that we have a a wide base of stakeholder support across communities, and given that this next stage of inquiry happens at committee stage, I wonder if my colleague would answer as to why she will not push the bill toward committee stage at this time. Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr.

Speaker, as I said earlier, and my colleague across the way may not have been in the room at the time, I do support it at this stage. I do want it to go to committee, and I do want to have a full array of witnesses come forward. One point that I will disagree on with my colleague across the way, with a great deal of respect, is that what she is saying is not always the case. She made the assertion that at committee stage witnesses are heard and a robust debate takes place. However, since I have been in this Parliament, we have had a major piece of legislation go through without any witnesses being called.

I have been the vice-chair on a number of pieces of legislation at committee, and I have seen how they have been pushed through with very little attention being paid to opposing points of view on anything that the government has brought forward. Mr. Arnold Chan (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I want to express that I fully agree with the hon. member's comments with respect to her concern as it relates to consecutive and minimum sentencing.

I certainly share her concern that it would be helpful to give discretion to the judiciary and the prosecution in terms of looking at the facts of a case before setting out sentences. However, I do want to direct her specifically to

section 445.01(2)(b), which deals with

summary conviction offences. In this particular instance, it does not actually set out a minimum prison sentence. It sets out the potential for a prison sentence of up to 18 months, but not a minimum. Therefore, depending upon whether the prosecution decides to proceed by an indictable offence or a

summary conviction offence, if it proceeds on the lesser charge, there may not be a minimum sentence imposed. Does this alleviate her concern with respect to minimum sentencing? Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : No, Mr. Speaker, it does not. Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as justice critic for the New Democratic Party, I think second stage consideration is important. I appreciated hearing what my colleague had to say. I think second stage is a very important part of the process.

When we get to committee we will have heard all of these comments, be they from the new Democrats, the Conservatives, the Liberals, or whomever. I appreciate the member's concern with respect to minimum sentencing. I appreciate her concern with respect to consecutive sentencing. The problem is that often, as she said, the devil is in the details. What concerns the member the most? Is it the consecutive sentencing or the minimum sentencing?

Since the minimum sentence in similar cases seems to be higher than what has been proposed in the bill, would it be more of a concern with the consecutive sentencing, which might create a problem inside the judicial system?

(1225) Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, the member is far more of an expert in this area than I am. I appreciate that she is the critic for this area and does amazing work, not only in representing her riding but also in educating us on many issues. I am looking forward to the debate. Right now both concern me, and the consecutives concern me more. However, I need to hear more debate. We have parliamentary democracy for a reason and legislation goes through the various cycles for a reason.

My big fear at second reading is that just because the government has a majority, it seems to think it can truncate different parts of that parliamentary process to get to the end goal. Sometimes when that it is done, harm is done. For me, every stage of the legislation is important. I have been in the House for second reading of some bills and have not seen one colleague from the other side stand to speak to it. In this case, members might wonder who they are debating.

The government brings in the legislation and we need to debate that with the it, as well as hear from colleagues on this side and from the other opposition party at the other end. As well as participating and hearing from this side, a critical element is to have government members stand, debate and present their cases. If those cases are compelling, then my mind could be changed. That is why I come to the House. Those who have known me for the last number of years, in whichever job I have done and wherever I have been, know I do listen and I do change my mind if I hear cogent and coherent arguments.

Right now, some of my colleagues are saying that I do not. It is very disrespectful because they are impugning my intentions. Only I have the right to determine what I say and what my intentions are. Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the member for Newton—North Delta clearly outlined why the New Democrats will support the legislation. However, she also outlined some of our concerns.

I want to refer to the speech that was given by the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île , in which she highlighted the fact that the New Democrats had two private members' bills before the House dealing with animal cruelty. In her speech, she referenced Bill C-232 from the member for Parkdale—High Park . Her bill would remove animals from the

section of the Criminal Code on property and create a new

section for animal cruelty offences. In short, animals would be considered people and not just property. She went on to say that the definition of animal was inadequate, which Bill C-232 would attempt to address. The second private member's bill is Bill C-592 from the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine . That bill seeks to better define what an animal is under the Criminal Code and what is meant by intents and acts of cruelty. Since 2006, we have seen a failure on the part of the Conservative government to address some very valid concerns with regard to animal cruelty.

Could the member comment on the government's failure to address some of those other issues? Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims : Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan has been one of my mentors, even before I became a member of Parliament. She has done amazing work in the area of aboriginal and first nations communities. She has also been very calm and thorough in addressing critical issues. The member is a role model for many us on how to do the work of a parliamentarian, and I thank her for that. As with many other issues that need to be addressed, we have seen a pattern in the government.

There can be legislation introduced by the opposition that just sits there. The Conservatives do not want to debate it or address those issues. However, when they put forward legislation, they want to rush it through. I think there is unanimity in this room. We do want to address cruelty to animals. However, this bill, even though it goes part way, has major flaws that we want to see debated. (1230) [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Before resuming debate, I should advise the House that there have been more than five hours of debate on this motion during this first round.

Consequently, the speeches will now be 10 minutes and the period for questions and comments will be 5 minutes. [ English ] Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Newton—North Delta for her very kind comments. She has also done yeoman's work in the House, particularly with regard to issues recently around child care. I want to acknowledge the good work she has done. As well, the member clearly indicated that the New Democrats would be supporting Bill C-35 .

It was interesting to hear questions from the other side. We talk about this place being a democratic institution. Part of being a democratic institution is ensuring that my constituents are represented in the House. That means as members of Parliament we should have an opportunity to rise in the House to speak to particular legislation. The members ask why do we not just get it to committee. I do not happen to sit on the justice committee, so I would be unable to participate in the questioning of witnesses and in any debate at the committee with regard to the legislation.

Therefore, it is important that I am able to rise in the House to express what I think are concerns for my riding and to have that voice on the record. Again, we support the bill and as the member for Newton—North Delta rightly pointed out, we do have concerns. However, let me talk about what the substance of the bill is. According to the legislative

summary, Bill C-35,

an act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals) , is as follows. It is also called Quanto's law in honour of the police dog which was stabbed to death while helping to apprehend a fleeing suspect in Edmonton, Alberta in October 2013. Quanto had four years of decorated service and had participated in more than 100 arrests. The legislative

summary says: Currently, an offence is committed under sections 444 and 445 of the Criminal Code (Code) when someone wilfully kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures cattle or when someone kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures a pet wilfully and without lawful excuse. There are also a number of provisions that address cruelty to animals, including

section 445.1 of the Code, which establishes that it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to an animal. The legislative

summary goes on to talk on to talk about what the new offences are and it indicates: Clause 3 creates new subsection 445.01 (1) of the Code,3 which establishes that it is an offence to wilfully and without lawful excuse kill , maim, wound, poison or injure 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 while it is assisting a person with a disability.

It goes on to say that, “A minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months takes effect only if a law enforcement animal is killed”. Subsequently it refers to the consecutive sentences clause 2: Clause 2 of Bill C-35 creates new

section 270.03 of the Code, which establishes that, if the abovementioned offences are committed against a law enforcement officer...the sentence imposed shall be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on the person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events. We certainly support an initiative that protects service animals. We know they play a very important role in aiding police officers, border security in airports where the service animals are being used for drug detection.

We support legislation that enhances the protection for these animals, but as other members have rightly pointed out, there are some serious concerns with regard to the continuing use of mandatory minimum sentences and the consecutive sentencing clause within the legislation. I want to turn for a moment to the mandatory minimum sentences. There have been a number of scholarly articles written over the last several years with regard to the effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences in the United States. I want to quote an

article that was published February 10, 2014, by the Heritage Foundation. The articles says, “Reconsidering Mandatory Minimum Sentences”. In the abstract, it indicates: Mandatory minimum sentences are the product of good intentions, but good intentions do not always make good policy; good results are also necessary. With respect to each crime, is justice best served by having legislatures assign fixed penalties to that crime? Or should legislatures leave judges more or less free to tailor sentences to the aggravating and mitigating facts of each criminal case within a defined range?

(1235) There were numerous arguments with this article, both for and against. As members can probably tell, I am not in favour of mandatory minimum sentences, so I will quote from the parts that support my argument. I do not have time, unfortunately, to go through some of the cases, but in the conclusion, it says: Congress was right to be concerned about reducing sentencing disparity and ensuring that sentences are neither unduly lenient nor unduly harsh.

Nonetheless, just as law should be tempered with equity, so should rigid sentencing rules leave room for adjustment in certain cases where a legislatively fixed sentence would be manifestly unjust. No statute can account for every variable in every case, and the attempt to do so with mandatory minimums has given rise to punishments in some small-scale drug possession cases that are completely out of whack with the purpose of the federal sentencing laws. Again, I want to stay with cases in the United States.

Over a number of years it has had its “three strikes and you're out” laws and some other mandatory minimum sentencing laws that have now proven to be not that effective. There was an

article on February 22, entitled “Texas an unlikely model for prison reform”. It is a California senator who quoted this, but the

article states: For over 30 years, spending on our prison system has steadily climbed from 3 percent of the state's operating budget to 11 percent. Even during the depth of the Great Recession, spending on prisons and jails increased while spending on education and health care was slashed. It continues to increase today. It doesn't have to be that way. There are alternatives, and unlikely as it might seem, Texas seems to be leading the way... Among the members of his board of directors are national conservative leaders Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich.

That is to highlight the fact that it not just the New Democrats or Democrats or Liberals who are indicating that there should be a review of the mandatory minimum sentencing; it is also conservatives in the United States. The

article continues: How is this happening? Texas is investing in alternatives to incarceration that are proving to be cheaper and more effective at keeping people out of prison. It is also doing a better job of rehabilitating people to keep them from reoffending and...back in prison. Texas uses risk-assessment and better probation procedures to divert large numbers of nonviolent offenders away from the prison system, keeping them away from hard-core criminals.

It requires strict implementation of victim-restitution measures, while offering alternatives to prison such as civil sanctions, drug courts and drug-abuse and mental health treatment. It also offers rehabilitation programs like job training for those in prison to prepare them to re-enter society. And Texas has invested heavily in reducing the caseloads of parole and probation officers so the state can keep better track of the people it supervises and help them move in a new direction.

Texas, which I think most people would agree has had a fairly strong approach to the criminal justice system, is implementing measures that do not rely on mandatory minimums and other such measures. It is actually looking at rehabilitation. When we talk about prison reform, I want to reference Howard Sapers, the ombudsperson for prisons. For years, he has been raising the issues around how people are treated once they are in the prison system and how many of the things that happen do not contribute to keeping people out of jail once they are released. Many other voices out there are speaking up.

However, the last point I want to touch on is the failure of the current Conservative government to adequately address prevention measures, because the best measure in the justice system is to stop people from going to jail in the first place. The Institute for the Prevention of Crime at the University of Ottawa has a number of resources, but it also has an

article titled, “Building a safer Canada: effective planning for crime prevention”. In the introduction to this, it states: Safety is a vital component of our quality of life. Our police and criminal justice systems play an essential role in helping to achieve these goals, and we should continue to do everything we can to help make them more responsive, efficient and effective. However, there are no easy solutions to the problems of crime and victimization, and little evidence that simply relying on more enforcement and more punishment will significantly increase our individual and collective safety...

There is also a convincing body of evidence that prevention is an effective way to move forward. The concern is that Canada is not doing enough to make the best use of this knowledge and expertise—we need a sustained commitment to doing more to translate proven approaches into common practice.

(1240) Because my time is almost up, I do not have time to go through the whole article, but it has a framework for prevention planning. It says that there are five interconnected questions. One is understanding the problem and developing a vision, an action plan, and responsibility centres. Second is concentrating resources. Third is relying on evidence-based approaches. Fourth is assuming adequate and sustained support, and fifth is informing and engaging the public. In conclusion, New Democrats support Bill C-35 , but we look forward to a full review at committee. Ms.

Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a bit more time pursuing the issue of mandatory minimum sentences. The member noted in her speech that there was a body of academic literature that said that these were completely ineffective. In reviewing the literature at the time we were reviewing what was then the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10 , in the fall of 2011, I could not find a single peer reviewed, academic paper that suggested any benefit whatsoever to mandatory minimum sentences. It was not just some academic papers, as far as I could find, but all of them.

I wonder if my friend has seen any evidence whatsoever that mandatory minimum sentences are anything other than, as she suggested the right-wing centre in the U.S. has now concluded, good intentions going toward an ineffective policy. Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr. Speaker, of course, the member is also a lawyer, so she has had some personal exposure to the criminal justice system. Like many people, I did a Google search today in preparation for speaking. I was looking for both the pro and con arguments with regard to mandatory minimum sentences.

Interestingly, the legal memorandum by the Heritage Foundation provides some arguments for and against. The problem is that in the United States, prosecutors are actually the ones making some determinations about mandatory minimums, because prosecutors are defining what the charge will be. Sometimes they are defining the charge so that it does not fall under a mandatory minimum. There are people somewhere else in the chain of decision- making in the United States who are making decisions about whether mandatory minimums will or will not apply. That has been raised as an issue in Congress.

Although there are some opinions in favour, they have more to do with procedural things in the United States.

(1245) Mr. Arnold Chan (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I too listened with interest to the presentation by my friend, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan . I very much agree with her perspective with respect to mandatory minimum sentencing. However, I want to direct her specifically to proposed subsection 445.01(1), which sets the legal threshold that it has to be

an act that is willful and without lawful excuse. Would my friend like to comment on whether perhaps the reason the government is suggesting there should be a minimum sentence of six months is that it reflects the fact that it believes that a crime committed against a service animal is abhorrent and requires some kind of penalty that reflects society's abhorrence of the impact on service animals? Ms. Jean Crowder : Mr.

Speaker, the Conservative government, with its continued use of mandatory minimums, seems to be saying, in part, that it does not trust judges to review the evidence before them and use their knowledge, expertise, and long history in the courts to make the appropriate determination about what an appropriate sentence would be. By imposing mandatory minimums, in this particular case, it continues that line of reasoning and thought that seems to be evident in so many other pieces of legislation we have seen before the House.

Serious concerns have been raised, with regard to Bill C-10 , the omnibus crime bill that was referenced, and a number of other bills, that the Conservatives continue to undermine the ability of judges to make appropriate decisions. If there are judges who are completely outside the norm in sentencing, there are other ways of dealing with it other than putting mandatory minimums in bill after bill. [ Translation ] Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I ask for your indulgence and that of my colleagues as well.

I know that our remarks must be relevant to the matter at hand; however, this is the first time I have risen to speak since the tragic events of last Wednesday. First and foremost, I simply want to thank the Sergeant-at-Arms and his team who, when it comes right down to it, saved our lives. I do not want to exaggerate, but that really is the case. I also want to thank everyone in my riding, Chambly—Borduas. We have received many emails over the past few days in a show of solidarity. Through you, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to say how proud I am, even more so than last week, to be able to represent my constituents in the House and speak on their behalf. I have found a positive side to this very difficult tragedy. I have come to realize how much of a privilege it is to be here for them and to continue this work. Having said that, I will move on to today's debate on Bill C-35 , which is known as Quanto's law because it is named after a police dog in Edmonton that was killed while a crime was in progress. As many of my colleagues have said, we support this bill because, really, who would not?

According to my latest information, Canada's Criminal Code is not quite up to date on animal cruelty compared to other countries like ours around the world. We have a lot of catching up to do. I know that over the past few years many of my NDP colleagues have introduced bills about this issue. That is why, obviously, we support the bill. As I just said, who would not? However, we do have some major concerns, and unfortunately, they often come up whenever we are dealing with bills that would change the Criminal Code. The two issues we are concerned about are minimum sentences and consecutive sentences.

We just heard an excellent speech from my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan , and several other colleagues of mine, regarding minimum sentences. It is important to note once again that we are seeing this pattern more and more from this Conservative government. According to published articles on crime and the justice system, it is becoming increasingly clear that minimum sentencing is not producing the desired results. It is doing nothing to improve prevention, even though, at the end of the day, our main objective should be to ensure that future crimes are prevented.

If we take a closer look at minimum sentences, we find all kinds of other problems. One problem is quite common. In many of the government's proposals, the minimum sentences are sometimes lighter than what judges have imposed in some cases. We have a situation where the justice system has proven that imposing minimum sentences was unnecessary. This measure appears to be more politically motivated, to show that the government is trying to be “tough on crime”, as we often hear, but in fact, the justice system is already doing its job.

Minimum sentences are being imposed in some situations where the justice system was already doing a good job and where the sentences imposed were sufficient. Some discretion is being removed from the justice system. We could examine our system in Canada, or even comparable systems, such as those of the United States or England, and have a debate on the unique aspects of each system. Nonetheless, one aspect is comparable and that is the division of powers. Obviously, Parliament has a responsibility to enact laws, but the justice system has the responsibility to ensure their enforcement and their

interpretation. Just because we are disappointed in how a law is interpreted, that does not always mean that it is Parliament's responsibility to change the law immediately.

(1250) The government wants to change legislation every time it disagrees with what the justice system is doing. We must ensure the independence and discretion of the justice system and not legislate on a case-by-base basis, because that is a very slippery slope. Unfortunately, this government does that far too often, especially when it comes to minimum sentences. It is a worrisome trend. In some cases, we support these bills, because, contrary to what my colleague heckled earlier, we cannot be against what is right.

For example, when it comes to victims' rights or animal cruelty, including cruelty against police service dogs in a criminal context, we cannot be opposed. However, when this type of situation occurs, the Conservatives too often move time allocation or closure motions. A government minister asked us why we did not stop debating and immediately send the bill to committee if we were in favour of it. The reason is quite simple. First, committee is not the place to debate with our colleagues opposite. There are sometimes debates with witnesses, since we do not necessarily agree with them.

However, the primary purpose of committee is to learn from the expertise of witnesses so that we can better understand our own concerns. We are not all lawyers, and if we do not have the expertise to explain the subject matter in simple terms, we cannot make informed decisions and amend a bill if necessary. Committee is therefore not the place to address our colleagues. Furthermore, as in the House, it is not allowed. However, in the House, we have the opportunity to hear Conservative members and members of other parties speak, to ask them questions and to hear their answers.

Unfortunately, the government is preventing us from voicing our opinions on a bill because it does not believe that we should speak about it if everyone supports it. Although we support the bill, we still have concerns about justice and crime issues, particularly with regard to minimum sentences, which are at the heart of this matter. When we have the opportunity to ask our Conservative colleagues questions—and that is not the case—the time for debate is limited.

Although we recognize how important and urgent the issue is in some cases, rather than just rushing the bill to committee, it is important that we all have the opportunity to speak, ask our questions and present our arguments. Committee is not the place for 308 members to discuss a bill. That is why we have debates, and government members must stop downplaying their importance. It does not do justice to Parliament or the legislative process. It results in mistakes, for example bills that are thought to be unconstitutional or must be fixed in committee.

If more extensive debate were allowed, we could advance these arguments and avoid these problems. In closing, I would like to say once again that my colleagues and I support this bill. I am saying so for the third time. Who would not?

(1255) However, as several of my colleagues also mentioned, these details matter to us. We have concerns about minimum sentences and consecutive sentences, which take away discretion or judicial authority. As legislators, we are beginning to take over the work of judges. That is not how the system is supposed to work. Although animal cruelty is terrible and we are pleased to see the government bring in legislation, we must nevertheless pay attention to the separation of powers. Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

As he mentioned, the Conservative government has a habit of introducing bills in the House containing mandatory minimums, including omnibus bills it has introduced since 2012. The NDP is against animal cruelty. There are many people who have spoken in favour of this bill, including Edmonton police officers. We support sending this bill to committee. That said, I would like to know whether my hon. colleague could talk about the bills containing mandatory minimums that the Conservative government has introduced in the past.

I would like him to talk about the negative effects that these mandatory minimums can have on our legal process. Mr. Matthew Dubé : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She mentioned omnibus bills. We all remember Bill C-10 , which illustrates the points I raised earlier regarding the importance of having a full debate in the House and the opportunity to speak to all the different aspects of the bill. As for the member's question about mandatory minimums, indeed, this is something we are seeing more and more, and it is one of our two main concerns with this bill.

Since I was elected in 2011, we have seen mandatory minimums for every issue associated with the Criminal Code. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan spoke about the chain of decision making; she spoke about prosecutors and judges. That is what is important. Imposing minimum sentencing seems to ignore the existing judicial hierarchy. That is troubling and problematic. Judges and lawyers are there to look at cases one at a time. If we create broad legislation that imposes minimum sentences, we could be looking at some problematic situations. It will also impact the prison system.

We need to allow judges to make that distinction instead of having to navigate the murky waters of government legislation. However, as my colleague also noted, despite our support, we also need to be aware of these problems and bring them up in committee. (1300) [ English ] Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful comments on this bill. I would like to ask him about mandatory minimum sentences, which are once again provided for in this Conservative bill.

In a way, they undermine the goal of the bill, which is to ensure that there are adequate and serious penalties for people who harm service animals. A recent documentary called State of Incarceration , which aired on CBC's Doc Zone and was produced by a constituent of mine, very graphically showed how mandatory minimum sentences and other kinds of supposedly tough-on-crime legislation in fact undermine the criminal justice system.

They lead to overcrowding in our prisons and less support and assistance for criminals and people who are incarcerated to be rehabilitated, get back into the community, and ultimately become contributing and productive members of society. My colleague may not have seen it, but can he comment on the intent of this video, which was to shine a light of this undermining of effective criminal justice systems? Even the U.S., which pioneered this tough-on-crime agenda, is turning back and going for rehabilitation as a more cost-effective measure to treat serious crime. [ Translation ] Mr. Matthew Dubé : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. Unfortunately, I have not seen that documentary; however, now that I know about it, I am very interested in seeing it. Even though I have not seen the documentary, it is becoming increasingly clear that minimum sentences are not the solution. The issue with the way the government approaches the debate about prevention and rehabilitation is that when it hears those words, “prevention” and “rehabilitation”, it assumes they mean befriending criminals.

What is interesting—and the government always forgets this—is that prevention and rehabilitation are good for the safety of our communities. Rehabilitating criminals and focusing on prevention will protect victims and prevent future victims. Those are the kinds of things that lawyers, prosecutors and judges can take into consideration. Of course, as legislators, we have a responsibility to make the necessary adjustments. However, too often the government seems to want to take a generalized approach whenever something does not go its way. That is not a responsible way to work, and that is what concerns us.

Still, the fact that the government is supporting service animals and does not want to see animal cruelty in general gives us reason to support this bill. [ English ] Ms. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the member opposite for bringing forward a bill that takes into account a need to respond to the killing or injuring of a service animal.

As a compassionate community, we are well aware of the many times that animals have come to the assistance of people and have served as law enforcement animals, military service animals, or service animals that support persons with disabilities. The stories are many and legendary. One example is that during Hurricane Katrina, a 19-year-old dog saved his 80-year-old owner from drowning. A 19-year-old dog is perhaps even older in years than some of us here in the House.

This particular situation was very poignant inasmuch as the elderly gentleman, George Mitchell, said that he would have given up his struggle against the surging waters of Katrina had it not been for the actions of his long-time pet, his long-time friend. Clearly there is a sentient reality to animals, and we have to be very cognizant of that. There is also the example of Yoshi, a police service dog in Waterloo region. Yoshi had served the community since his deployment in 2009 and was known as a top cop. He was highly skilled in capturing suspects, finding narcotics, and finding missing persons.

This last skill of finding missing persons touches us closely. We think of elderly people who have gone missing and children who are lost. Service dogs are incredibly important and instrumental in addressing those kinds of situations. Bill C-35 is called “Quanto's law” in remembrance of Quanto, the police service dog killed in Edmonton trying to stop a fleeing suspect. The assailant was charged with animal cruelty and sentenced to 26 months in prison. The decision in this case was made at the discretion of a judge and was based on years of jurisprudence, existing law, and the evidence presented in court.

That is how it should be. A sentence should be determined in a court of law by an experienced judge in an effort to ensure the sentence fairly reflects the crime. That is at the centre of our concerns about Bill C-35. Bill C-35 is laudable in its sentiment, and we should indeed be concerned about animal cruelty.

Section 445 of the Criminal Code sets out penalties and fines for those guilty of injuring all animals other than cattle. I want to be very clear: New Democrats condemn all forms of animal cruelty, a position that we have supported for a long time. We have expressed those concerns over the past number of years regarding this Parliament's inability to truly protect animals. Members may recall some of these situations, because at present, animal cruelty crimes are considered property offences. It is not an offence to train animals to fight other animals or to receive money from the fighting of animals.

There is no specific offence for particularly violent or brutal crimes against animals, and no additional protection is afforded to law enforcement animals. Bill C-35 seeks to change that by bringing forward specific and additional protection for law enforcement and service animals. However, we have to look carefully at what is proposed in this legislation. Bill C-35 would create a new offence, as I said, for killing or injuring a service animal, a law enforcement animal, or a military animal while the animal is on duty.

It proposes a minimum sentence of six months if a law enforcement animal is killed by an individual while that individual is perpetrating an offence. It proposes that sentences imposed on a person be served consecutive to any other punishment imposed on that person for an offence arising out of the same event or series of events.

(1305) Like all Conservative legislation, the devil is in the details. This is a laudable bill but it has been tainted and undermined by introducing minimum sentencing, which clearly reflects what we can only call a repressive agenda. It does not take into account that we have courts and jurisprudence with respect to those courts and sentencing. We once again see a government showing its desire to deprive those courts of their discretion in sentencing, which is a very important part of a workable and intelligent justice system. I am certain that every member of the House knows that there are circumstances.

There is nothing that is absolute. There is no situation that can be absolutely deemed like any other. We have many examples of that in the courts. We simply cannot forget that and set it aside. The Conservatives should also be aware of the consequences of minimum and consecutive sentencing on the criminal justice system. In this case, we have to hear from the experts about the consequences of minimum and consecutive sentencing. That is why we are recommending that the bill be studied carefully in committee.

We need to hear from experts on what the consequences of this particular legislation could be and would be. We have to pay attention to those experts and to warnings from the courts. I am sure members are well aware that in January of this year a B.C. judge challenged Ottawa's tough on crime legislation and found that mandatory minimum sentences violated the charter rights of those being condemned. I am concerned that Bill C-35 would also face such challenges. The Supreme Court is looking at a specific B.C. case regarding a criminal who was convicted of drug trafficking.

In that case, Judge Galati said that in that situation a one-year minimum sentence would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited under

section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At the time, Judge Galati declared the law in question to be of no force and effect in B.C. That is why it is now being heard by the Supreme Court. It is important that we wait for the decision and rely on the wisdom of that court before we go ahead with any other legislation that could be challenged under the charter. The lawyer in that case said that mandatory minimum sentences are problematic because they remove the discretion of judges. He said that the federal government's enactment of mandatory minimum sentences was more political than reasonable.

This notion that being tough on crime would somehow make us safer is a misconception. We are no safer now than we were 10 years ago. That is a simple fact. Other jurisdictions have eliminated or have begun to reduce mandatory minimums, most notably the United States. They are moving away from those practices because they are found to be ineffective. Most Commonwealth countries with mandatory minimums have an escape clause so that judges can bypass the minimums when they deem it necessary.

Therefore, we are going in the opposite direction of much of the rest of the world at a time when our crime rate is historically low.

(1310) Finally, I would like to say that New Democrats, of course, condemn all forms of animal cruelty. We have held that position for a very long time and have supported legislation such as Bill C-232 and Bill C-592 . We do believe that this particular bill is undermining what is otherwise a laudable idea. We have to be very careful of that. We have to be very cognizant of that. Ms. Peggy Nash (Parkdale—High Park, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I remember a few years ago, in Toronto, when Brigadier, a beautiful Belgian cross horse, was struck and killed by someone fleeing in a getaway car.

It shocked and outraged the entire community. My community of Toronto was shocked and horrified just a couple of weeks ago when animal services announced that a black Lab puppy was in their care. It was the most severely abused animal they had ever seen. It had acid burns, broken bones and internal injuries. Clearly all protections for animals, especially service and companion animals, need to be improved, as the member for London—Fanshawe said. I put forward Bill C-232 to improve our animal cruelty laws, and we have not found support on the other side of the House.

Why does the member think that the government side would not support general laws to improve the welfare of animals and to improve the struggle against animal cruelty, but that it would overreact and in fact undermine the situation with some of the provisions in Bill C-35 ?

(1315) Ms. Irene Mathyssen : Mr. Speaker, it is a very strange and bizarre contradiction that we see from the government. I was in the House, as was the member, when a number of bills came forward in an effort to ensure our cruelty laws were updated. I take special note of Bill C-232 , a bill the member had a great deal to do with. I do not understand why the Conservative government did not support any of those efforts.

It would seem that it may have been influenced by outside interests that perhaps put pressure on them to overlook the reality of the kind of cruelty that my colleague described in regard to the Labrador puppy. In this particular case, there does seem to be an overreaction. I think it has a great deal to do with public perception, the way the public and the media reacted to the very unfortunate case of this particular dog. It was unfortunate. All cruelty to all creatures is absolutely unacceptable.

However, we have to come back to what we know and what we understand, and respect for our courts and respect for the kinds of things that work in terms of sentencing. This is not it. Ms. Peggy Nash : Mr. Speaker, with crime in Canada at a 40-year low, why does the member think the federal government would spend hundreds of millions of our tax dollars building 2,700 new prison cells, which it clearly intends to fill with its so-called tough on crime agenda.

This, at a time when its counterparts, the Republicans in the southern U.S., have come to see the light of day and have recognized that in fact this not only makes no sense when it comes to good criminal justice but in fact it is bad economics. It undermines the ability of a society to rehabilitate people, to get them back and effectively working in society, rather than paying for their upkeep in the criminal justice system when probably the vast majority have no need to be there whatsoever. Can the member explain why our government seems to be so wrong-headed in this regard? Ms. Irene Mathyssen : Mr.

Speaker, quite frankly, I am at a loss to understand what motivates some of the thinking and legislation that comes out of the current Conservative government. As my colleague pointed out, crime is at a 40-year low. We should use this opportunity to start looking specifically at prevention and rehabilitation: rehabilitation for those who are on the wrong path, and prevention for youth and people who are vulnerable in the community. I would like to mention that a significant number of people who are incarcerated are mentally ill.

However, we do not have money for mental health or community support, but we have a lot of money for jails. In this particular case, it is the provinces that would be footing the bill. In my own city of London, Ontario, the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre is crammed full to the point where violence and desperate behaviour is rampant. We have to do better. Surely we can. (1320) [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I will follow in my colleagues' footsteps because we have just gone through some unusual events on Parliament Hill, events that affect not only politicians but all Canadians. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of those whose priority is our safety and that of our assistants and the people who work in this magnificent parliamentary precinct, which includes the Centre Block and the Confederation Building, where my offices are located. These have been difficult times. The labour relations lawyer in me feels compelled to ask everyone to take good care of themselves.

People who experience a traumatic event can experience different after-effects, and of course my thoughts are with our Sergeant-at-Arms. I hope that he is taking care of himself and that others are taking care of him too. Everyone has gone through a very trying time. That said, this is an interesting time to rise in the House to discuss Bill C-35 as the official opposition's justice critic. I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île , who took care of this file so that I could carry out a thorough review of other bills.

She has done an extraordinary job of helping our caucus colleagues understand the issues with this bill. I listened to my colleagues earlier, particularly my colleague from Parkdale—High Park , who is an animal lover, and, I would think, not the only one in this House. It is ironic that I have to rise in this House to speak to this bill, because those who know me will know, on the one hand, just how much I love animals, and on the other hand, how I would not want anyone at all to be hurt in any way.

These harmless, defenceless creatures deserve the same protection that we afford to children and people with mental or physical disabilities. We have to make sure we protect those most vulnerable in our society and those who cannot protect themselves. It is ironic, because this bill has come about in much the same way as many Conservative bills seem to come about, namely, as a reaction to specific situations, which always raises many questions in my mind. When I was a law student at the University of Ottawa a few decades ago, I had an affinity for criminal law.

I found it extremely interesting, as most law students do when they enter the faculty of law. They often think they will become the greatest criminal lawyers the world has ever known. I became a labour lawyer, which shows that what may seem extraordinarily exciting when we are at school is in fact different in reality. Criminal law is not an easy domain and I commend all crown prosecutors, police officers, defence lawyers, probation officers and judges who work in this area and who are called to determine the right thing to do in each case.

I realize that the crime rate is going down and that the nature of crimes is changing. We can always get statistics to say what we want them to say. On our side, we might say that we do not need to be too harsh or build prisons since the crime rate is going down. However, our Conservative friends, who do not seem to have anything to say today, will probably say that the crime rate is going down because they are extremely tough. Again, we can get statistics to say what we want. However, when I was studying law, the basic principles of sentencing stuck with me.

In that regard, I am deeply concerned about all these bills. It is not my socialist heart that is bleeding, but that of a person to whom it is important that the Criminal Code, the country's law governing acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, explain the decisions taken by our society on punishing these acts—criminal acts in this case.

(1325) We have always been told by our criminal law and sentencing experts that there are basic principles that we cannot circumvent. I am not going to lecture you because that is not my style. However, we sometimes forget. When we forget, we have a tendency of repeating past mistakes or making other mistakes that could be avoided if we were to examine the simple facts. There are parts of the Criminal Code that we do not often hear about in the House. I am thinking of the entire part that starts with

section 716, for example. It covers sentencing and explains the basic principles that apply to sentencing. In the short time available to me, I would like to highlight a few of the very fundamental sections that a court must consider when it is preparing either to hand down a sentence or to make a decision about an accused. I would point out that one of the very few changes being made to

section 718 is the addition of aggravating factors to the

section on sentencing. 718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (

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

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

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; This principle is often forgotten by our friends opposite. (

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

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community. With respect to this last point, all types of restorative justice come into play.

Section 718.01 concerns crimes against youth under the age of eighteen years.

Section 718.1 is extremely important. This

section is often the kicker. It is at the heart of our beliefs as the official opposition in this House.

Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code states: 718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Notice that it says “the offender” and not “the offenders”. That is where jurisprudence comes in, with respect to the principle that each case is unique.

Section 718.2 states: 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing... What follows is a list that has grown over the years under the Conservatives and in response to some realities in society. The

section continues: (

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; Once again, there is the principle that every case is unique. Proportionality must be taken into account. Criminal justice must be applied in the same way for each person who commits the same crime, under the same circumstances. During sentencing arguments, the parties will point out aggravating factors or factors in favour of the accused. The

section continues: (

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; My colleagues have already said this so I will not repeat. Second reading should not be used to repeat the same principle, but to make specific points. This stage is extremely important. As I was telling one of my colleagues earlier, as justice critic, and since we support this bill, I will have the benefit of having heard my colleagues' thoughts when we examine the bill in committee with experts and witnesses.

I would have liked to have heard more from the other side, since everyone is capable of presenting persuasive arguments now and then. However, you cannot win anyone over with silence. The Criminal Code states: (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; We know this. There is an enormous amount of literature and many analyses have been conducted on the usefulness of minimum sentences and the legality of consecutive sentences.

(1330) Furthermore, some decisions in similar cases have gone as far as the Supreme Court. I urge my colleagues to be cautious—and that is what we will do in committee—and to ensure that this bill complies with all of the relevant principles of law. I would also suggest that all members of the House read

section 716 and subsequent sections of the Criminal Code on sentencing. They will see that our Criminal Code already has a strong foundation of principles that apply. Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her wonderful speech. As she mentioned, the NDP will support this bill so that we can examine it in committee and hear what experts have to say about it. Do the Conservatives need to introduce a minimum sentence in this bill, which seeks to protect animals trained by police officers?

Is it really necessary to include a minimum sentence in this bill, which, we all agree, seeks to protect animals? Ms. Françoise Boivin : Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, one we will probably ask of those who testify before the committee. I am sticking my neck out a bit, but I will keep an open mind and maybe someone can convince me otherwise. What I am prepared to say is that when I look at the jurisprudence for similar crimes or cases like this, I rarely see sentences that are shorter than the minimum set out in Bill C-35 .

The same thing happened with another bill, which was also a private member's bill, about child abduction. I asked a victim who testified before the committee if the fact that the Conservative government's minimum was lower than what the jurisprudence showed for such cases was problematic. In other words, the government wanted the minimum sentence to be four years, but the courts were already handing down sentences of eight, 10 or even 14 years in such cases. Legislators do not talk for the sake of talking. It is a basic argument used in court.

I can easily picture a defence lawyer saying that the judge is being too harsh and that is why the government legislated a lower minimum. The victim found that very unsettling and definitely did not want to see that happen. It can be good to leave such things to the court's discretion because it knows and applies the principles of Criminal Code sections 716 and on. In many cases, it comes down to information. Members of the public might not like it, but if they had all of the facts of the case, including the aggravating and mitigating factors, they would understand why a particular sentence is given.

Of course there can be mistakes, but that, as some judges will tell you, is what appeals are for. [ English ] Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to continue in the vein of mandatory minimum sentences. Earlier in my speech I quoted from an

article by the Heritage Foundation in a legal memorandum of February 10. In this memorandum, it is contended that mandatory minimum sentences did not reduce crime. University of Minnesota law professor, Michael Tonry, has concluded, “the weight of the evidence clearly shows that enactment of mandatory penalties has either no demonstrable marginal deterrent effects or short-term effects that rapidly waste away”. The

article states, “Statutes imposing mandatory minimum sentences result in arbitrary and severe punishments that undermine the public’s faith in America’s criminal justice system.” Could the member comment on that? Does she agree that mandatory minimums can undermine the faith of citizens in the justice system? (1335) [ Translation ] Ms. Françoise Boivin : Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to answer that question with something that former Supreme Court of Canada justice Major said about minimum sentencing when he appeared before one of our committees.

I want to make one thing clear: I do not want anyone in the House to think that I am saying that minimum sentences are strictly illegal. I am wondering if they are useful. Justice Major explained to us that a mandatory minimum sentence that is reasonable in its length could function quite well, and the courts may agree. That said, minimum sentencing is not recommended, partly for the reasons she mentioned. I do not think that anyone in the House believes that a criminal, before committing a crime, walks around with a copy of the Criminal Code under his arm, saying that he knows how he is going to be sentenced.

I would be very surprised if anyone believes that. They need to stop lying to themselves because that is not at all what is happening. That said, society has a responsibility to determine how it will punish certain behaviours. The problem with the Conservative government is that it just wants to give a certain impression by telling the public that it has implemented a mandatory minimum sentence. What the government does not say is that the mandatory minimum sentence is lower than what the courts were already imposing. It is merely a question of impressions.

I do not think that we should be playing with the rules of law, with criminal sentencing principles in Canada. Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to rise in the House to speak to a bill. Before I begin, however, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the events that transpired here last week, because I thought about them a lot over the weekend. Most of all, I thought about the tragedy, the death of Corporal Cirillo, and the impact it has had on his family and his son.

I would simply like to add that my thoughts and prayers are with his family, and I extend my condolences to them. I attended various events in my riding this past weekend, and it is always a pleasure to do so. Many people came to see me in Wakefield to say they stand in solidarity with me, our team, our leader and all members of this House after the tragic events of last week. I thank them for offering their sympathy, for supporting me and for expressing how much hope they have in our work here.

That said, once again we have another bill that blurs the lines between the government, politics and the legislature. [ English ] This is an issue that the government has brought several times to the House in legislation. Time and time again, we are the only party that seems to stand up for this basic principle that it is judges who are best placed to decide what a sentence should be. During a trial, what goes on is questioning. It is almost like a form of investigation.

Through this process, in what I would call a dialectical process of exchange, facts come up and it is discovered that things are not as simple as they appeared before. The situation appears different under questioning, and there needs to be a process in place so that those things that are revealed during a trial are taken into consideration in sentencing. This is a principle that is fundamental.

It is also a principle of how democracy should work, which is that there should be a very long arm between the legislators and the government in place on the one hand and what happens on judges' benches on the other. (1340) [ Translation ] Bill C-35 was announced in the 2013 throne speech, so it is not very surprising that we have it before us today. The bill proposes Criminal Code amendments that would create a new offence specifically prohibiting the killing, injuring, poisoning or maiming of trained animals being used to help law enforcement officers, persons with disabilities or the Canadian Armed Forces.

I have to say that I have no problem with the principle of protecting animals that do this kind of work. On the contrary, I really like animals. I have had animals around me ever since I was a young boy. I learned to respect them and to see them as our companions on the beautiful planet we share with them. It is commendable to have legislation to protect them further. However, I see that the government is being contradictory. Not so long ago, we introduced bills to do exactly this: improve legislation on protecting abused animals.

I do not know why, perhaps it is simply because it was not the government's idea, but the Conservatives voted against our bills. How can they vote against this principle and then turn around and propose the same principle? On this side of the House, when we see such inconsistency, it makes us wonder. What is behind this? What are they trying to get passed that might not have anything to do with the well-being of animals? This bill is meant to improve legislation.

For example, persons convicted of such an offence could face up to five years in prison, with—and I want to emphasize this—a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison in cases where a law enforcement animal is killed while assisting a law enforcement officer in enforcing the law and the offence is prosecuted by indictment. If a law enforcement animal is injured or killed while on duty, the sentence for that offence would be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender arising out of the same event. This is definitely a case of interfering with judicial independence.

Judges make decisions that they consider to be appropriate. After all, judges are not appointed just for the fun of it. It is clear that we must respect their work and their experience. Therefore, it is a bit odd that the provisions of Bill C-35 do not change the sentences and fines set out in

section 445 of the Criminal Code for all animals that are not cattle. The Edmonton police department seems to be supporting the bill, and it seems reasonable to believe that the other police forces, as well as individuals with service animals, will want to support this bill. That is true. However, the fact remains that there are two very serious problems with this bill. As I mentioned earlier, it introduces a six-month minimum sentence and consecutive sentences if a law enforcement animal is killed when a crime is committed.

Consequently, it would be good to hear in committee what the experts and other civil society organizations have to say about these two issues. However, the government must listen to them. If we go to committee, which we would like to do, consultations must be robust and rigorous and expert opinions must be considered. There is a problem, though. (1345) [ English ] Time and time again, what we have seen is that when we support a bill going to committee, either the committee process is shortened or we do not have access to all of the experts or to a healthy debate.

Additionally, when we propose amendments that would help the piece of legislation to be enacted and to be balanced, every single amendment from the opposition is opposed. That does not seem to be particularly reasonable when, after hearing from all of these experts, it is clear that the proposed legislation could be improved. In closing, I have a few fundamental questions for the Conservatives. [ Translation ] For example, why does the government want to once again remove discretionary authority from the courts? That is a basic question but the government still has not answered it.

Also, why does this government always try to amend good bills by inserting unreasonable clauses, such as consecutive sentences? Have the Conservatives assessed the impact that including a minimum sentence and consecutive sentences will have on the justice and prison systems? Once again, we have not received any answers in this regard. Finally, why do the Conservatives think it is necessary to include a minimum sentence in this bill? These are reasonable questions. The problem is that we are the only ones talking about this bill. We are the only ones asking questions about this bill.

Nevertheless, we are here to do that. How can we get the answers we need to really know whether the government is serious about wanting a common sense bill? Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Pontiac , who does an extraordinary job. I do not envy the size of his riding. That being said, I know how involved he is in his riding. I appreciated what he said in his speech. I also appreciated the fact that he mentioned that we are the only ones who are taking action in this regard.

Earlier, I heard the minister of state tell us that we could all support this bill and send it directly to committee, as though that would ensure that it would be passed more quickly. I assume that my colleague is aware that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has a lot on its plate already. I am thinking of the victims bill of rights, the new regulatory authority associated with Bill S-2 and all the private members' bills that are currently before us. What is wrong with wanting to debate these issues in this House and to hear different opinions on some specific aspects of the bill?

For some, that means the protection of animals. For others, like me, that means the protection of animals, of course, but also some provisions of the Criminal Code as a whole. For others, it means other things. This allows us to pass more clearly defined legislation. I would like to hear his comments on that. Mr. Mathieu Ravignat : Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague from Gatineau for her question. I want to say that she does an excellent job on this file and on all justice matters. She may not envy the size of my riding, but I do not envy all of the work that she has on her plate.

It is incredible to see how hard she works. I think it is clear that this government has a lack of respect for the debates in this House and for the views of the official opposition. The bottom line is that I represent my constituents. They often share their concerns with me about justice bills. Fortunately, the member for Gatineau stands up for the interests of people in the region on justice matters. In light of what the Conservatives have proposed, I think it would be reasonable to take a moment, to take a little time to think about how all of these bills will work together.

Where is there overlap and what can be simplified? We need to look at everything as a whole. I am not convinced that the government is doing that. (1350) [ English ] Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for that informative speech. One of the issues that has come up with regard to animal cruelty and this particular piece of legislation is that we had two private member's bills proposed by New Democrats before the House. One is Bill C-232 , which was introduced by my colleague for Parkdale—High Park . This bill would remove animals from the

section of the Criminal Code on property and create a new

section for animal cruelty offences. In short, animals would be considered people and not property. Part of the reason the bill was introduced is that the current definition of “animal” is inadequate. The second is Bill C-592 , which was introduced by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine . This bill seeks to better define what an animal is under the Criminal Code and what is meant by “intended acts of cruelty”. I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that although the Conservatives have been in government since 2006, they still failed to introduce good legislation with regard to animal cruelty. Mr.

Mathieu Ravignat : Mr. Speaker, there have been advances made in science and research in the last 20 years about how animals feel pain, how they feel suffering, their brain capacity, the impacts of abuse upon them, how the relationship between animals and human beings has changed and how, for example, certain animals can be used for therapy. That is quite a new area of scientific research and medical research. It is only natural that we take into consideration these new findings and that we review our archaic laws with respect to defining what an animal is and the rights that an animal has.

The reality is that we share this planet. There are more animals on this planet than human beings. We need to conceptually shift the way that our civilization understands that relationship. I think that begins with reviewing laws with respect to the definition of animals and ensuring that their rights are protected. [ Translation ] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : Before I acknowledge the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles , I must inform her that I will have to interrupt her around two o'clock for statements by members. Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, since this is my first time rising in the House since the events of last week, I would simply like to take this opportunity to commend the work of our police officers, our House of Commons security forces and the RCMP, and all their courageous deeds. On behalf of the people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, I wish to extend our sincere condolences to Nathan Cirillo's family. I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-35,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals) , a Conservative bill that has passed first reading in the House. I am proud to say that I really hope this bill is examined in committee so that we can hear what many experts and stakeholders think on this matter. We need to have a closer look at this bill in order to revisit the two most important problems in the bill: the introduction of minimum sentences and consecutive sentences. In concrete terms, this bill amends

section 445 of the Criminal Code by providing for a new offence when a service animal or a law enforcement or military animal is killed or injured in the line of duty. The bill also provides for a minimum sentence of six months if a law enforcement animal is killed in the commission of an offence. It also makes the sentences imposed on a person consecutive to another sentence imposed for any other offence arising out of the same events. I think the Government of Canada needs to examine bills dealing with animal cruelty.

The 157 police dogs in service in Canada and the 53 teams of dogs and trainers with the Canada Border Services Agency are important to Canada's security. They are important resources for our police officers and those who patrol our borders. There are two important points to note about this bill: it creates another minimum sentence and it makes changes regarding consecutive sentences. Before I continue, I would like to talk about the current legislative provisions related to animal cruelty.

It might be interesting for Canadians to know that presently, according to sections 444 and 445 of the Criminal Code, anyone commits an offence who wilfully kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures cattle or who, wilfully and without lawful excuse, kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures domestic animals. Subsection 429(2) of the Criminal Code also provides a defence.

(2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under sections 430 to 446 where he proves that he acted with legal justification or excuse and with colour of right. The Criminal Code also sets out some provisions concerning animal cruelty, including

section 445.1, under which it is an offence to cause unnecessary pain to an animal. I would remind the House that the NDP introduced a number of bills designed to amend Canadian laws concerning animal cruelty. In particular, I would like to mention the work of the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park , who introduced Bill C-232,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code concerning cruelty to animals in order to repeal animal cruelty provisions that are included in the part of the Criminal Code that governs animal well-being, acknowledging that they can feel pain.

(1355) Interestingly, data from new scientific studies show that animals can feel pain. An interesting aspect of the bill introduced by my New Democratic colleague from Parkdale—High Park is that these changes will better protect strays and wild animals. We know that existing laws do not protect them well enough. Before question period starts, I would like to comment briefly on Bill C-592 , which was introduced by my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and is also designed to protect animals from cruelty.

For those following today's debate, it would be interesting to get more information on these bills and support the work of these members so that these bills can move forward and provide better protection for animals in Canada. I know that I will have a little more time after question period to make my case, but I would like to talk about mandatory minimum sentences because this is not the only Conservative bill that includes a mandatory minimum sentence. According to the Canadian Bar Association, there are now at least 57 offences with mandatory minimum sentences, while in 2005, there were only 29.

We are very concerned about that. I look forward to continuing my remarks after question period. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton) : The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles will have three minutes remaining to conclude her speech when the House resumes debate on this motion.

Statements by Members Statements by Members (1400) [ English ] Manitoba Elections Hon. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Brian Bowman is a friend, a husband, a father, a lawyer, and a graduate from my favourite high school, Shaftesbury. Now he is Winnipeg's newest mayor. Last Wednesday, Manitobans elected their mayors and reeves, and there was a very high turnout. The Winnipeg election was hard fought. I would like to mention the successful candidates from my riding: Marty Morantz in Charleswood-Tuxedo; Scott Gillingham in St. James-Brooklands; Shawn Dobson in St.

Charles; and Wilfred Taillieu, who continues to be the mayor of Headingley. I wish to also thank the previous city councillors from my riding: Scott Fielding, Paula Havixbeck, and Grant Nordman. On the same day that Manitoba was having its elections, the Parliament Buildings were attacked. The contrast between the two events was stark. Canadians have demonstrated that Canada will always be the true north, strong and free—the maple leaf forever.

[ Translation ] Events of October 22, 2014 Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, after what happened last week, October 22, 2014, will be etched in our minds forever. To all those who wanted to know how I was doing and who sent me words of encouragement, I say thank you. I am well and I am proud to be here in the House today. I want to thank my girlfriend, my loved ones, my family and my team, who have always been there for me. I would also like to thank the parliamentary security guards, the Ottawa police, the RCMP officers and our armed forces from the bottom of my heart.

They intervened to protect us. We owe them more than our gratitude. We owe them a debt of remembrance. [ English ] Remembrance Day is upon us. It is an opportunity for me and all Canadians to honour the sacrifices so many women and men who have made our country. Lest we forget.

Ben TeKamp Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC) : Mr. Speaker I wish to pay tribute to former Brockville mayor Ben TeKamp, who passed away on October 12, at the age of 69. Mr. TeKamp served as a councillor before becoming mayor for three terms. He dealt with tough times in the municipality when the city was dealing with economic challenges and undertaking former provincial services. He also managed the city through the 1998 ice storm just as his term began.

Mayor TeKamp was also a community activist, a small business booster, a local sports hall of fame supporter, and an active rower who coached at the 1976 Montreal Olympics. He was honorary colonel of the Brockville Rifles, active with the United Way of Leeds and Grenville, and a mentor and friend for many politicians, including me. His friendly smile and engaging personality invited calm discussions and loyalty among his friends and colleagues. He was named Brockville's Citizen of the Year in 2006. He will be missed by his wife Cathy, daughter Robin, son Mark, as well as by their families and by all who knew him.

700 David Hornell VC Squadron Ms. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I celebrate each and every one of the extraordinary Royal Canadian air cadets in the 700 David Hornell VC Squadron.

This past weekend, the Ontario Provincial Committee of the Air Cadet League of Canada presented the following awards to our outstanding squadron: Warrant Officer First Class Ashley Eugine, a first-year McMaster student who travels back every weekend to serve, was named Air Cadet of the Year from 8,500 air cadets in 114 squadrons, which is a tremendous achievement; Warrant Officer Second Class Nikhil Peri was the top Ontario student pilot on the 2014 Power Pilot Scholarship and received a Hamilton Flying Club Legacy Award; 2nd Lieutenant Jack Tornabene received a certificate of merit, one of only 21 awarded; and Major David Brown received a Cadet Instructor Cadre Award of Excellence, for which only six officers are honoured annually.

I ask the House to recognize the outstanding achievements of 700 squadron.

Harvest Festivals Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks I have had many opportunities to attend harvest festivals throughout my riding, also known as fall suppers. As I drive around my riding, I see that the harvest for the most

part is complete. Now is the time to celebrate and thank God for the abundance he has blessed us with. I think the following words written by Matthias Claudius in 1782 most suitably express our gratitude this time of year: We plough the fields and scatter the good seed on the land, but it is fed and watered by God's almighty hand; he sends the snow in winter, the warmth to swell the grain, the breezes and the sunshine, and soft refreshing rain. We thank thee, then, O Father, for all things bright and good, the seed-time and the harvest, our life, our health, and food.

Accept the gifts we offer for all your love imparts, with what we know you long for: our humble, thankful hearts. Today I stand to thank all the hard-working farmers across Canada, especially those in my riding of Provencher. In the gallery today are some young farmers from my riding: my children, Stacy and Nathan Martens.

(1405) [ Translation ] Longueuil Community Fair Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today I would like to talk about the success of the first Foire communautaire de Longueuil, which was held last month. I organized this event in my riding, and it attracted more than 150 constituents and involved 16 community organizations and federal entities, which were there to address problems that arise every day. Over the past three years, I have seen the impact of this government's cuts on the people in my riding and the problems they have in trying to access the services to which they are entitled.

I would like to remind members of the importance of our community organizations and the exceptional work they do every day. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank them all, even though I only have time to mention a few: Place Rive-Sud, the Comité logement Rive-Sud, and the Carrefour d'information pour les aînés. It is crucial that these organizations, which work to maintain the extremely fragile social fabric, continue to receive funding. The NDP is building bridges with people, organizations, and services for Canadians with events such as this. That is how we are building the Canada of tomorrow.

[ English ] Head Start for Young Women Mrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that the city of London is one of six Canadian communities participating in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' head start for young women program. I am also proud to say that our government supported this project through Status of Women Canada. As a part of this program, a documentary called 25% has been produced that encourages young women to participate in their community through politics and civic engagement. I fully support this initiative.

I, along with the Minister of Status of Women , was pleased to participate in this documentary. These efforts support one of the most important opportunities we have as a country: to empower women, young women, and girls. Why? Because helping them make their voices heard will truly make a difference for themselves, their families, and their communities. I salute all the participants in this initiative in London and across the country who are helping our country, take one more step towards equality.

Veolia Environmental Services Mrs. Patricia Davidson (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Sarnia—Lambton, I am well aware of the inherent dangers that go along with the type of heavy industrial work that takes place in my riding. This weekend we were all reminded of the dangers of working with hazardous materials when an explosion took place at Sarnia's Veolia Environmental Services facility. On behalf of Sarnia—Lambton I thank the firefighters, police and paramedics who responded to the incident with courage and valour.

Today we have learned that one of the five injured workers has succumbed to his injuries from the blast, while the others remain in critical condition. Sarnia—Lambton grieves this loss. With an investigation into what took place now ongoing, at this time our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this tragic incident, and their families. We call on all Canadians to keep them in their hearts.

Canada-China Relations Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is set to visit China in November. This is an important moment for Canada. It is a time for us to lay the foundations for a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship between our two countries and peoples in the 21st century. Canada owes much to China and Chinese Canadians for the many outstanding contributions they have made to our nation.

From the Chinese immigrants who, at great sacrifice, built our national railway to the dynamic Chinese-Canadian community that today contributes to our economic, political, cultural, and scientific progress, our history and our future are immeasurably enriched. China is poised to become the world's largest economy and, as Canada's second most important trade partner, China will only grow in importance. However, progress is not measured in economic terms alone. Our ability to grow as nations depends also on our commitment to build societies that are peaceful and democratic and respect human rights.

Today, I proudly stand with the Chinese-Canadian community that is dedicated to realizing these ideals for both nations.

(1410) Grains and Oilseeds Industry Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the grains and oilseeds sector is a significant contributor to the Canadian economy, which remains the top priority for our government. Today the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced an investment of $15 million to the Canadian International Grains Institute to support market development efforts and sales of Canadian field crops in global markets through customer education and training.

This investment will support the Canadian International Grains Institute in its ongoing efforts to share technical and market knowledge with customers around the globe, further strengthening the competitive advantage for Canadian field crops. This will be achieved through technical exchanges, new crop missions, educational programs for global clients, and domestic training. While our government continues to support our farmers, the opposition would rather introduce a carbon tax to hinder Canada's competitive advantage in the grains and oilseeds sector.

[ Translation ] Events in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the tragic events that occurred in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu and cost Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent his life have deeply affected my community. This incomprehensible act of violence shocked Saint-Jean residents and Canadians across the country. My thoughts are with all of our men and women in uniform. As we know, over 30,000 people are associated with the military college and base in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. These institutions are a symbol of the courage of our soldiers, who risk their lives for us.

I urge all my constituents to remain calm and rational in the face of fear and terror. As for me, I commit to work with my colleagues in the coming weeks to respond to these senseless acts of violence in a way that will keep Canadians safe while protecting their civil liberties. As our leader said, these acts were designed to drive us to hate, but they will not.

[ English ] Domestic Violence Mr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, it is a silent issue and no one talks about it. Domestic violence is something that happens behind closed doors. Today I would like to bring Elisapee Sheutiapik to the attention of the entire House and her ongoing work to eradicate domestic violence. Her initiative is to have every road in this great country of ours named “Angel Street” so we can all benefit from the constant reminder that domestic violence persists and its victims bear no responsibility. The Angel Street project is gaining momentum.

I would like to congratulate Elisapee for winning the Canadian Economic Club 2014 Voice of Hope Humanitarian Award. I hope all cities will consider participating in this project. Elisapee's action is bringing much-needed attention and a stream of light to this despicable, inexcusable, and barbaric behaviour. For this, all members of the House thank her and congratulate her.

Community of Cold Lake Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the community of Cold Lake, Alberta, for its display of humanity after a community mosque was vandalized last Friday. Residents and Canadian Armed Forces members in uniform went to the mosque to show their support and clean up after the vandalism. We cannot allow the tragic events of last week to compromise the ideas that we as Canadians hold dear. I can think of no better rebuttal to this act of vandalism than the compassionate action of the residents of Cold Lake.

The message sent by these residents reflects a core human value: “Love your neighbour”. We are never stronger than when we are united in love and solidarity.

Remembrance Day Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, this Remembrance Day I will remember in particular veteran Nathan Cirillo and veteran Patrice Vincent. I will remember them for having embodied the very essence of what it means to be Canadian. Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who served our great country for 28 years and dedicated his life to the ideals of freedom and democracy, deserves our greatest respect and thanks.

Corporal Nathan Cirillo, who stood guard at the Monument of the Unknown Soldier in honour of the memory of tens of thousands of Canadian veterans, has touched the lives of millions of Canadians and will be remembered for his sacrifice. This Remembrance Day, I encourage all Canadians to make a special effort to attend a local Remembrance Day ceremony to pay their respects and in honour of those who have died for us and for our freedom.

(1415) Parliament Hill Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I was thrilled the public was allowed back on Parliament Hill last Friday night. We have the support of a remarkable security team that is committed to ensuring the safety of members, employees, and visitors, and they have made every effort to get things back to normal. The grounds of Parliament belong to the people of Canada. This is not an exclusive club or a place that is just meant for those with insider access.

It is a place where every day, average Canadians can show up, take in the beauty, see our country's history, and watch democracy in action in the House of Commons or at committees. I encourage people to come to Parliament Hill if they can, as many have today. I am overjoyed to see the galleries open today to welcome Canadians, students, and tourists from all over and to show that now, more than ever, we are still a country of freedom, democracy, and openness.

Canadian Armed Forces Mr. Paul Calandra (Oak Ridges—Markham, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, last week's events affected all Canadians. We are all mourning the loss of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo, who were both brutally murdered in cold blood. Make no mistake, we will not be intimidated or deterred by any act of terrorism against our armed forces. Last week, General Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff, gave the orders for members of the Canadian Armed Forces to continue to stand to at their posts as part of the national sentry program.

The national sentry program reinforces Canada's commitment to remember and honour those who have served, including in both World Wars, the Korean War, and most recently Afghanistan. Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent will not be forgotten. I also commend all Canadians who honoured the memory of both fallen soldiers along the Highway of Heroes on Friday. Canadians of all stripes gathered at the overpasses in solidarity and to demonstrate to the families of our fallen that they do not mourn alone.

I want to thank all of our brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, especially those serving as sentries at war monuments across this great land, for standing on guard for Canada.

ORAL QUESTIONS Oral Questions [ English ] Public Safety Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, today Parliament Hill has again opened its doors to the public, after last week's terrible events. This is an important statement about the openness and public nature of the House of Commons, which lies at the heart of our democracy. Will the government update the House on security measures that have been taken at federal sites, such as Parliament Hill, to allow them to reopen? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, we are proud to be back in business here on the Hill, like last week. As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, responsibility for security in the parliamentary precinct rests with your authority. You can count on our full support and that of the Board of Internal Economy. As members know, the silos we have today are not adequate. Security inside Parliament must be integrated with outside security forces.

National Defence Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we are all relieved to welcome the public back to the gallery today. Members of Canada's military services are still coming to terms with last week's events targeting members of the Canadian Forces. The Minister of National Defence told us last week that the Chief of the Defence Staff is actively reviewing measures to ensure security for Canadian Forces members and civilian staff. Again, can the minister update the House on any measures that are being taken? Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of National Defence, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, the military is taking all necessary precautions to ensure the safety of our men and women in uniform. The hon. member may be aware that the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Lawson, has ordered a temporary measure with respect to where and when our armed forces should wear their uniforms. I accept his judgment, because, as always, the safety and security of our men and women in uniform has to be our primary concern.

Public Safety Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, as we consider how to respond to these events and the attack in St. Jean-sur-Richelieu, we need to proceed in a serious and thoughtful way. Any legislation must ensure that the core Canadian values of protecting public safety and civil liberties will be respected. We cannot sacrifice one core value for another. Will the government ensure that this House is allowed to conduct a proper study and hear from experts and Canadians on any new public safety legislation?

(1420) Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the first responsibility of the government is to keep Canadians safe. We will not overreact, but it is also time we stop under-reacting to the great threats against us. [ Translation ] Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the National Post reported that the Conservative government plans on introducing new measures to make it illegal to condone terrorist acts online. Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness clarify his intentions? Hon.

Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we will introduce a bill today to clarify the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. This is the first step, but it is clear that we will move forward with other measures and that we will act quickly to protect Canadians' safety while still protecting privacy. Ms. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, in light of the violence and the resulting state of insecurity, we need an approach that protects both Canadians' civil liberties and their safety.

Those are both fundamental responsibilities of our Parliament. How does the government plan on bringing in new legislation that will protect Canadians' safety and civil liberties? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, the primary responsibility of any government is to protect people's safety—to protect the safety and security of all citizens. We will obviously introduce measures that will protect Canadians from terrorists who seek to harm us, and at the same time we will ensure that we are protecting Canadians' civil liberties.

I want to be clear: we are not overreacting, but we will also not just stand by. We will propose concrete measures to combat radicals, terrorists, Islamists, and anyone who wants to attack Canada. [ English ] Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Parliament is at its best on issues of national security when partisanship is set aside and the government and opposition parties work together. We saw that last week.

In this spirit of non-partisanship, will the government commit to working with opposition parties on any new security legislation, and will it commit to holding detailed technical briefings for members of Parliament once any new legislation is introduced? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, regarding the police inquiry related to the events that took place last week, the police are already providing details of dates.

With regard to law, we will be more than willing to share a technical briefing with the opposition so we can have an open and frank discussion on matters of public safety. That is why we are moving forward with a first step today and are looking at other measures to keep Canadians safe. Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, Parliament works best on these issues when members of all parties can actively participate in the debate on legislation but also in productive and meaningful committee deliberations.

Can the government provide a timeline with respect to the new national security legislation, and will the government commit to working with opposition members, both during the debate in the House and in committee, to see if we can all make amendments, which will improve and strengthen our national security legislation. Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, as I have just indicated, our government is moving forward today, and it will be seeking support from all parties in the House of Commons and the Senate to move this legislation forward as quickly as possible. The changes proposed in the government's existing CSIS bill are needed and are ready to be introduced. Further reforms to protect Canadians from terrorism will be presented in a second forthcoming piece of legislation following the agenda here in the House. [ Translation ] Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.) : Mr.

Speaker, Parliament is at its best on issues of national security when partisanship is set aside and all members work together to engage in real debate and a meaningful process at legislative committees. Can the government give us an idea of its timeline and how quickly it intends to adopt the measures proposed this afternoon? Will it commit to working with opposition members to see if we could make amendments that would strengthen national security measures in forthcoming bills?

(1425) Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. As I said, today we will be introducing a bill that aims to clarify the mandate of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service for authorities, so that it can operate in compliance with Canadians laws and protect Canadians from the terrorist threat and radical and dangerous individuals. We will begin by introducing that bill today and, in co-operation with the leaders of the House, we will move on to first reading.

With the help of the House, this bill will move quickly through the process so that we can implement it. Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the government's new anti-terrorism bill must strike a balance between the safety of Canadians and maintaining our civil liberties. The stakes are too high for the government to move ahead without considering the concerns of experts and the opposition. Will the government commit to working with us, and not shut down debate, to ensure that its bill protects Canadians while also upholding their civil liberties? Hon.

Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, we will be introducing the bill today. This is a balanced bill that will protect Canadians while respecting all laws and individual rights. The important thing is for our national security agency to properly protect Canadians. That is why it is important to clarify its mandate. I hope that we can benefit from the opposition's co-operation.

We have already had discussions on the matter and want to get on with an open debate to move this legislation forward so that it becomes the law of the land and an effective tool for protecting the Canadian people. [ English ] Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the government put out calls for research on the role of the Internet in radicalization and on ways to prevent or intervene when Canadians are being radicalized. This research will provide important context for an appropriate response from government to radicalization.

Will the results of this research be considered before any new legislation is brought forward by the government? Hon. Steven Blaney (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, twice this week there have been brutal attacks on our soil, targeting Canadian Armed Forces members, perpetrated by radical Islamic terrorists. We are unwavering in our determination to degrade and destroy the threat posed by violent extremists, both abroad and right here at home.

In the coming days and weeks, we will be working with our security agencies and taking all necessary actions to ensure that law-abiding Canadians are kept safe from those who wish to harm us.

Employment Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims (Newton—North Delta, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are like a broken record on the temporary foreign worker program. Time and again they made half-hearted reforms in response to public outcries, yet nothing really changed. In 2013 the Conservatives promised to crack down and ensure the program would be only a last resort for employers. Now we have learned that over the next two years, the number of low-skilled foreign workers in Canada actually increased. How could the Conservatives let this program get so out of hand? Hon.

Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, regrettably, the

preamble to the hon. member's question is completely inaccurate. The member will no doubt be interested to know that for the first six months of this year, the number of labour market impact assessment applications made by employers to have authorization to employ temporary foreign workers decreased by 75% compared to the number received in the first six months of 2012. With tougher penalties, much stronger inspections, a higher fee, better labour market information, and an absolute ban on low-skilled workers in regions of unemployment of over 6%, we are doing what Canadians expect. (1430) [ Translation ] Mrs.

Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, when it comes to temporary foreign workers, the government has failed across the board. In 2013, its reform was supposed to restrict the number of unskilled workers coming into Canada. The latest data show that the number of unskilled temporary foreign workers has gone up again, even near reserves, where the unemployment rate is high. That makes no sense. Will the minister acknowledge his deplorable error and take the time to thoroughly reconsider his reform? Hon.

Jason Kenney (Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the NDP members because they make the same mistakes in both official languages. How wonderful. Compared to the first six months of 2012, the number of employer applications for temporary foreign workers in the first six months of this year dropped by three-quarters. That is a 75% reduction. We have enhanced the integrity of the system. There are harsher penalties for employers who abuse the program, and we are making sure that Canadians come first in the job market.

Employment Insurance Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, after making cuts to the employment insurance program, now the Conservatives are dipping into the fund and using the budget implementation bill to set up a so-called hiring credit that is ineffective and ill-conceived. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this credit would create only about 800 jobs over two years. Each job would cost $550,000. It makes no sense. How can the Conservatives justify using workers' contributions to fund a program that will create practically no jobs? Hon.

Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, our hiring credit for small businesses will reduce employment insurance payroll costs by 15% and will help businesses save more than $550 million. The CFIB says that the credit will create 25,000 person-jobs. We are reducing payroll costs for 90% of businesses. This will certainly help small businesses.

The Budget Mr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' budget implementation bill is a 400-page monstrosity with 450 clauses. Several dozen statutes will be amended, on topics ranging from beekeeping to cable, employment insurance and refugee care. It is a real mixed bag. What is more, a number of measures in the bill are there simply to correct mistakes made in previous omnibus bills. Why is the government insisting yet again on passing a mammoth bill at top speed? What is it trying to hide? Hon. Joe Oliver (Minister of Finance, CPC) : Mr.

Speaker, our government's priorities are to create jobs and promote economic growth, and long-term prosperity. The government is taking measures to create jobs. For example, this bill will help create jobs and opportunities in Canada thanks to the new small business tax credit. I ask the opposition members to support this bill.

[ English ] The Environment Mr. Dennis Bevington (Northwest Territories, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, the latest omnibus budget bill combines the Polar Commission with the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, creating a new bureaucracy with a weaker reporting relationship with Parliament. Meanwhile there are numerous federal government Canadian Arctic science programs, such as the Polar continental shelf program at Natural Resources Canada, the Canadian Ice Service, and the NRC Arctic program. Climate change is a crisis in the Arctic.