Bill C-35 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law)
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 12, 2014
- Debated in principleNov. 28, 2014
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 15, 2015
- Passed the second chamberJune 18, 2015
- Became lawJune 22, 2015
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by the contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. On 12 May 2014, the Minister of Justice of introduced Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals) (Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law)), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-35 amends the Criminal Code to better protect law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals and to ensure that offenders who harm those animals or assault peace officers are held fully accountable.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
63% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (692 words introduced, 658 passed).
substantial changeintent kept
The core offence, punishment, consecutive sentencing and definition provisions remained unchanged. Formal elements such as session numbering, assent date and chapter designation were added while the first-reading header and explanatory notes were removed.
- Added royal assent date and chapter number to the title block.
After: “STATUTES OF CANADA 2015 CHAPTER 34 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (law enforcement animals, military animals and service animals) ASSENTED TO 23rd JUNE, 2015”
- Updated the parliamentary session reference in the header.
Before: “Second Session, Forty-first Parliament, 62-63 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014”
After: “Second Session, Forty-first Parliament, 62-63-64 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014-2015”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill relies on defined terms for animals and officers plus fixed numerical penalties and consecutive sentencing rules that leave little room for argument. A few phrases still invite disputes over intent and qualifications.
Open to argument
“wilfully and without lawful excuse”
The term lawful excuse is undefined and turns on subjective judgment of what counts as lawful.“professional service animal institution”
Professional is not defined, so disputes can arise over which trainers qualify.
Clear-cut
“liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and, if a law enforcement animal is killed in the commission of the offence, to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months”
Exact maximum and minimum terms remove discretion on sentence length.“A sentence imposed on a person for an offence under subsection (1) committed against a law enforcement animal shall be served consecutively to any other punishment”
Mandatory consecutive service is stated as a clear rule with no exceptions listed.“"service animal" means an animal that is required by a person with a disability for assistance and is certified, in writing, as having been trained by a professional service animal institution to assist a person with a disability.”
The definition requires written certification, creating an objective documentary test.
Discretion. No power is delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; all rules are set directly in the Criminal Code.
Challenging the law itself. Section 7 Charter claims could target the undefined phrase lawful excuse as potentially vague or overbroad.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could dispute whether the act was wilful or whether a claimed excuse was lawful, though the animal definitions and certification requirement are harder to contest.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.