Dear colleagues, I am happy to be here to discuss the bill on service animals.
[English]
It's always a pleasure to be with you, colleagues. We're here, as you know, to discuss yet another piece of criminal justice legislation that the government believes will contribute to making Canadian communities safer.
I thank you in advance for this committee's hard work and commitment to do a thorough and rigorous review of important bills, both government and private members'. I hope that my remarks today will assist you somewhat in the review of Bill , the justice for animals in service act, referred to colloquially as Quanto's law.
Quanto, as many of you will know, was an Edmonton police dog that was fatally stabbed on October 7, 2013, while assisting police in apprehending a suspect. The tragic killing of this beautiful law enforcement animal struck a chord with a lot of Canadians, and many in the police, legal, and community groups called for greater recognition and protection of service animals.
Bill fulfills a 2013 commitment in the Speech from the Throne to enact a law such this in recognition of the daily risks undertaken by animals used by police to assist them in enforcing the law and protecting society.
Quanto's killing was also the most recent instance in which a police service animal was killed in the course of a police operation, and there are other examples that I'm sure you will be studying.
[Translation]
In addition to proposing to create a new Criminal Code offence that would specifically prohibit the killing or wounding of a law enforcement animal, Bill would also extend specific protection to trained service animals that assist persons with disabilities and military animals that assist the Canadian Forces in carrying out their duties.
[English]
The members of this committee, I'm sure, are aware that the person who killed Quanto was subsequently convicted under existing section 445 of the Criminal Code for the wilful killing of a dog, along with other offences arising out of the same set of events on October 7, 2013.
The criminal responsible was sentenced as a result to a total of 26 months in prison on various charges, of which the sentencing judge attached 18 months specifically for the killing of Quanto. The court also banned him from owning a pet for 25 years and banned him from driving for five years. In sentencing the offender, the judge stated, “The attack on this dog wasn't just an attack on a dog. It was an attack on your society and what is meaningful in our society”.
The government agrees wholeheartedly with this sentiment and believes that the creation of a specific Criminal Code offence, coupled with a specially tailored sentencing regime, would contribute to the denunciation, both general and specific, as well as deterrence of such crimes. These are well-known sentencing principles, I know, for this committee.
[Translation]
I would like to take a moment to review with you just what Bill proposes in terms of amendments to the Criminal Code.
[English]
Just to turn quickly to the substance of this bill, the bill would clearly define which animals would fall within its ambit.
Secondly, the legislation sets out the element of the new offence. The prescribed conduct is the killing, maiming, wounding, poisoning, or injuring of a law enforcement animal while it is aiding a law enforcement officer in carrying out the officer's duty and a military animal while it is aiding a member of the Canadian Armed Forces in carrying out that member's duties or a service animal performing its tasks.
The necessary mental element is wilful and without lawful excuse, a common standard used in the Criminal Code, in order that accidental or negligent conduct would not be criminalized by this new offence. Obviously, there is a great deal of discretion within the courts for findings of fact based on evidence.
Finally, thirdly, similar to the existing section 445 of the Criminal Code, “Injuring or endangering other animals”, the new offence would be subject to a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment when the accused is prosecuted on indictment and 18 months imprisonment or a $10,000 fine for a summary conviction. So there's a hybrid element to the offence.
It is the sentencing regime that distinguishes this new offence from section 445, and it does so by introducing a provision, section 718.03, which expressly directs the sentencing court to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence as sentencing objectives in respect of this new offence.
This provision will apply whether the animal in question is a law enforcement animal, military, or service animal. However, with regard to an offence committed against a law enforcement animal, Bill would require the sentence imposed for the offence to be served consecutively to any other sentence imposed on the offender for an offence committed at the same time. And as is the case where a law enforcement animal is killed while assisting a law enforcement officer in carrying out his duties, and the offence is prosecuted by way of indictment—so there is a selection here—the offender would be liable to a mandatory minimum penalty of six months. This joins the some 60 other mandatory minimum penalties already found in the Criminal Code.
During second reading of this bill I was pleased to note there was broad support across party lines for it. I see this as one of the more non-partisan issues and non-partisan legislation that may come before this committee. In fact, there is a great deal of support for the enactment of the provisions in the Criminal Code that deal with the intentional injuring and killing of law enforcement animals, military animals, or service animals.
At the same time, I acknowledge that there will no doubt be questions raised with regard to the proposed mandatory minimum penalties, where a law enforcement animal is killed while assisting a law enforcement officer engaged in enforcing the law and prosecuted by indictment. To pre-empt the questions that I know will come, I believe that a mandatory minimum penalty is warranted in these instances, both for general and specific deterrence and denunciation of this type of offence involving service animals. Like members of the military, members of the police, some of whom are members of this committee, these are service animals that are in harm's way—it's the only way I can describe it. They are doing a duty that is a higher calling expected of an animal, in the same way that police officers, of course, assume a certain degree of danger and liability.
Therefore, with respect to the mandatory minimum penalties imposed by this bill, I would ask the committee to take note that this provision was carefully tailored in several ways.
First, the prospect of the mandatory minimum penalty being imposed only arises in regard to the intentional killing of a law enforcement animal while aiding a law enforcement officer in carrying out those duties.
Second, the potential application of the mandatory minimum is further limited by the fact that it would only apply where the crown prosecutor proceeds by way of indictment. Prosecutorial discretion is always exercised, with a careful eye to proportionality, constitutionality, and totality, the same considerations used by a judge. Where the crown elects to prosecute this offence as a summary conviction, the mandatory minimum penalties, obviously, don't apply.
Finally, in terms of the length of the mandatory term of imprisonment, the six-month term of imprisonment is at the lower end of the range.
I would pause here to underscore, as I mentioned earlier, that the judge who sentenced Quanto's killer specifically imposed an 18-month sentence of the 26 months that were handed down for the killing of that service animal.
Bill also proposes to amend the Criminal Code to require that a sentence imposed for an assault on a police officer, or certain other peace officers, will be served consecutively with other sentences imposed on the offender arising out of the same set of circumstances.
[Translation]
We are strongly of the view that attacks on those officials who work on our behalf to protect society also represent an attack on our society and that such a provision is justified to express society's denunciation of such conduct and as a general deterrent.
[English]
To conclude, Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to answer questions by you and members of the committee with regard to this important bill.
I again thank you for the work of this committee. I'll take the opportunity to thank all those members of police, military, and those who use service animals for things such as comfort and mental health counselling that we are now seeing through canine and equine companionship, which is an extraordinary use of animals in society.
For the furtherance of the principles of justice, we had a recent example of a dog in the Edmonton Police Service which accompanied a child who was obviously feeling the trauma of a sexual assault. That dog was allowed to be on the stand with that young girl while she gave her testimony. I think this is the type of innovation that actually brings great credit to our justice system, and it shows and highlights some of the great people we have working alongside those animals to further the interests of justice.
Thank you, Chair.
As with all legislation presented to the House of Commons or through the Senate, or in many cases even private members' bills, the Department of Justice routinely examines them for their constitutional compliance.
With regard to the specific question of whether the department believes, based on that constitutional analysis, that the bill is in compliance, the answer is yes. Do we have specific advice that touches on the subject of the reverse onus? I would say no—while it has been contemplated. This is part of the regular examination of bills that attempts, as a court would, to anticipate certain scenarios, certain factual evidence, that could and would be presented to a court. In regard to the reverse onus provisions here and charter compliance, we believe, again, on balance, that as written in this legislation, it would be found to comply with the charter.
I say that because the reasonable excuse presented here would be based on those factual scenarios of a person's attempting, essentially, to protect themselves, or being of the mistaken belief that the animal was going to use disproportionate force in either tracking them, holding them, or as is the case in some instances, where the police train the animal to do so, biting and holding the individual. If the person, for example—and I'm again doing what the courts often do, hypothesizing—had a panic attack, or the person had prior experience with an animal and as a result responded disproportionately, injuring the animal, we think that a court would properly consider that evidence in coming to the conclusion that they did use a reasonable excuse, that they didn't have the mental requisite, the mens rea necessary to convict a person for having harmed or killed the animal. All of those circumstances, as in many of these cases, would be based on the factual scenario presented to the court.
:
Well, the rationale for that, Mr. Dechert, and thank you for that question, was to capture that broader category of service animals. Above and beyond those working in law enforcement, this would also involve the type of animals we see working in border services, with the military, but also those animals that each and every day are interacting with the general public and providing a real benefit and a service, not only to individuals but to society generally.
There was a time not that many years ago when it was almost frowned upon for a person to have an animal with them in a mall, in public areas. Now we are seeing the utility that these animals bring. We're ratcheting up, if you will, the threshold of protecting those animals while they're working.
When the animals are in training—and this was something, quite frankly, that I needed to remind myself of—you're not supposed to approach them. Those who have animals with them while they're working will remind you: “Look, I'm sorry, but don't pat this animal. It's working. It's in the process of providing a service.”
I mention that only to underscore that these are animals of great social utility; they deserve greater protection, greater recognition. In fact, I'm also hopeful that they will benefit from greater inclusion and understanding of the role that they provide. Part of the criminal sanctions are for the purpose of protection. Part of this exercise, we hope, is to have a greater understanding of how we work with our four-legged friends and that what they do is of real benefit for our country.
Mr. Chair, not far from where we're gathered here, we have a statue that was built to recognize a dog that gave its life in service of Canada during the war. It picked up a grenade in its mouth and ran away from the soldiers who were gathered in that area, and thus when the explosion went off, the animal died. It's the same thing in Newfoundland and Labrador. There was a very famous dog that was a mascot for the Royal Newfoundland Regiment that gave its life in the service of the country.
These are acts of heroism by our furry little friends that really deserve recognition. Similarly, and not to in any way diminish the importance of it, they deserve protection under the law.
:
Thank you for your question.
Quanto's case is not unique. Other similar cases have come before the criminal court.
[English]
Obviously, in the case of Quanto, there was a conviction obtained by the crown under a different section of the Criminal Code. What the sentencing judge did there, I suspect, is look at the fact that this was a police animal, as an aggravating circumstance as opposed to a specific offence, which is what we're talking about here.
While there isn't a great deal of accumulated case law on this particular subject matter, there is some. Mr. Casey said that it's somewhere in the range of 10 cases. I think we looked at 12 to 15. There were a few others, perhaps, that didn't show up because they were provincial court cases and perhaps not as prominent.
Again, the Quanto's case and the resulting Bill is an attempt to encapsulate the specific role and the specific purpose these animals play, above and beyond an animal that is a pet or an animal that is kept for domestic purposes. Again, one of the more horrific examples of animal abuse is these puppy mills, where they raise animals for the sole purpose of mass-producing them, and they're abused. Dogfighting is another specific example in the Criminal Code.
In answer to your question, we didn't have a great deal of case law to depend on. We looked at Quanto's and the circumstances there. We consulted with police and those officials who work directly with animals and determined that this was a value proposition to put a specific law in place to protect those animals.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Wilks.
As I've done on other occasions, and as I know other witnesses have, I thank you for your service in uniform. Your experience, I think, is very important and instructive on a number of these cases.
You referenced the training regime that these animals go through. What I have seen in both the police training of animals and the military training—and they're often contract employees—is that it's extremely demanding or rigorous. These animals are selected the same way that Olympic athletes might be selected. Again, I don't think that's a stretch because many of these animals just don't make the cut, they don't have the physical prowess. We have an Olympian here, Kyle Seeback, who can speak to that as well.
But I truly believe that it goes back to the question of the value that we place on these animals, the investment. Some of these animals, when you calculate that training regime, the investment of time and effort put in by individuals with expertise in the area, you're talking about a value of tens of thousands of dollars. These are not show animals; these are work animals. These are specimens known for their strength, their endurance, and their ability to respond to commands.
Every dog, as you know and as you alluded to, forms a very special bond with their handler. There is, again, that very special esprit de corps that exists in dog handling units. They are ready to die for one another and they are very often in circumstances where that possibility exists.
I come back to the very important point that I think these are animals deserving the type of protection afforded to them by placing greater emphasis on deterring individuals or anyone who would deliberately harm an animal in the provision of that service.
:
I appreciate that, as somebody who has spent a lot of time on horseback. That was my job. I was a national park warden; actually, I was a back country warden. I spent hours on that horse and I still do in my own spare time when I go hunting or camping in the Rocky Mountains. I'm lucky to be from Alberta and have those opportunities.
I understand the bond that's created between a master—if you want to call it that—and the service animal, whether it's a horse for the very reasons that you highlighted, or with a dog.
There have been a lot of questions and concerns brought up about some of the issues around mandatory minimum sentences and some of the other provisions that we have here. One of the questions that I have a bit of a technical concern with—even though I agree totally in principle with the legislation—is that we've seen animals being used in space exploration and in a lot of different capacities. Some of those reasons might include the rehabilitation of the animal, but the other reason might simply be that the animal is being used in place of a human being as the initial point of contact, or there is a safety consideration or concern.
I think the issue is twofold, especially when it comes to service dogs. One, they can provide the services more quickly, efficiently, and more accurately, like you rightly said. Two, they're also sometimes sent into situations where it might not be safe for an officer to go in initially, or it might be too cumbersome. I mean a foot race between two human beings takes a lot longer to resolve than a foot race between a German Shepherd and a human being, for example.
When we put these provisions in place, which I'm sure will be passed, they will confer these animals with a certain level of protection above and beyond other animals, and rightly so for the risks they are taking under going these particular activities.
I'm wondering if there are other countries that we're aware of or other jurisdictions within Canada at the provincial level that may already offer certain protections to service animals?