This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in December 2009.
Rob Nicholson Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code
(a) to add to the sentencing provisions for murder so that any murder committed in connection with a criminal organization is first degree murder, regardless of whether it is planned and deliberate;
(b) to create offences of intentionally discharging a firearm while being reckless about endangering the life or safety of another person, of assaulting a peace officer with a weapon or causing bodily harm and of aggravated assault of a peace officer; and
(c) to extend the duration of a recognizance to up to two years for a person who it is suspected will commit a criminal organization offence, a terrorism offence or an intimidation offence under section 423.1 if they were previously convicted of such an offence, and to clarify that the recognizance may include conditions such as electronic monitoring, participation in a treatment program and a requirement to remain in a specified geographic area.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker Andrew Scheer
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON
moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Daniel Petit ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in today’s third reading debate on C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants). I am pleased to note that the bill was adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights without amendment.
The Government of Canada recognizes that organized crime, including gang activity, continues to pose a threat to the safety of our streets and communities, and Bill C-14 is part of our strategy to address this problem. This bill proposes amendments to strengthen the Criminal Code’s responses to organized crime. Most notably, it is taking direct aim at the increasing use of violence committed by organized crime. With these amendments, we are demonstrating our commitment to improving the safety and security of communities across Canada.
I am pleased to note that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met March 30, April 1 and April 20, 2009 and heard from the Minister of Justice, officials from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics and a range of stakeholders, including representatives of law enforcement, prosecutors and the Canadian Council of Defence Lawyers.
Bill C-14 proposes amendments in four broad areas.
First, it makes all murders connected to criminal organizations automatically first-degree murder, regardless of whether they were planned and deliberate.
Second, it creates a new offence to target reckless shootings involving the intentional disregard for the life or safety of another person.
Third, it creates new offences to respond to assaults against peace officers which cause bodily harm or involve the use of a weapon and the aggravated assault of a peace officer.
Fourth, it amends the gang recognizance provision to clarify that a judge can impose any reasonable conditions and to lengthen the period of the order to 24 months where an offender has been previously convicted of a criminal organization offence, terrorist offence or intimidation of justice system participant offence.
The bill received very strong support from almost all witnesses appearing before the committee. The proposed amendments to make all murders committed in close connection with organized crime automatically first degree, regardless of whether the murder was planned and deliberate, was well received. As you know, those convicted of murder receive a life sentence, but those convicted of first-degree murder are ineligible for parole for 25 years. In the case of second-degree murder, it is 10 years.
The committee heard evidence from officials from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics confirming that gang-related homicides are on the rise in Canada. In 2007, there were 594 homicides in Canada and 117 were gang-related. The committee also heard evidence from a prosecutor from Quebec that this amendment would be useful in securing first-degree murder convictions in gang homicides, regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate.
As to the second key element of Bill C-14, the creation of a new offence to address drive-by and other reckless shootings, this would be accomplished by prohibiting the intentional discharge of a firearm when in so doing the shooter turned their mind to the fact that doing so could put the life or safety of another person at risk.
There have been claims during committee debates that this offence is redundant and already covered by section 244 of the Criminal Code. This proposed offence is different from the existing and equally serious firearm offence, section 244, because it does not require proof that the shooter specifically intended to cause bodily harm to a person, something which I understand can be difficult to prove in certain cases.
The proposed offence is punishable by mandatory minimum penalties, which increase when the offence is committed for a criminal organization or if it involved a prohibited or restricted firearm.
The proposed mandatory minimum penalties did have the support of the prosecutors and law enforcement representatives, who saw the penalties, including the mandatory minimum penalties, as significant and important tools for prosecutors and law enforcement in the fight against organized crime.
However, the issue of the proposed mandatory minimum penalties was not universally supported. The Canadian Council of Defence Lawyers had concerns with the use of mandatory minimum penalties. As well, the proposed mandatory minimum penalties was the object of a motion to amend by the Bloc Quebecois that would have deleted the mandatory minimum penalties and left only the maximum penalty of fourteen years imprisonment. This motion did not carry.
I would like to take a moment to explain Bill C-14's proposal to have a mandatory minimum penalty for this offence. First of all, the penalty scheme of the proposed drive-by shooting offence is consistent with the overall penalty scheme of the Criminal Code. There are already a number of offences involving the use of firearms where mandatory minimum penalties apply, such as attempted murder and assault with a weapon.
Second, section 244, the existing offence of “discharging a firearm”, already carries a mandatory minimum penalty of four years, and the proposed offence is modelled on section 244. It would have created an inconsistency in the Criminal Code to have no mandatory minimum penalty in the new offence to address drive-by shootings but still have one in the existing section 244.
There should be no mistake about the government’s position, as reflected in Bill C-14: we need to take steps to address the lethal combination of guns and gangs. As an aside, I would also like to mention that the officials from Statistics Canada indicated that nearly 69% of gang-related homicides were committed with a firearm. In contrast, only 20% of non gang-related homicides involved firearms.
The third key element of this bill is aimed at providing increased protection for peace officers and responding to violence committed against other justice system participants. It does this by creating new offences to prohibit assaults against peace officers which cause bodily harm and aggravated assaults against peace officers. These offences are punishable, on indictment, by a maximum period of imprisonment of 10 and 14 years respectively.
These amendments were also supported by prosecution and law enforcement officials and viewed as necessary and useful. In addition, this bill would require a court to give primary consideration to the principles of denunciation and deterrence when sentencing an offender for any of the offences involving assaults against peace officers, as well as cases involving the intimidation of justice system participants, such as judges, prosecutors or jurors. This sends the right message and demonstrates the seriousness with which Parliament treats such acts that undermine the rule of law and the criminal justice system generally.
The fourth area of reform in this bill relates to the gang peace bond provision, which are preventive court orders requiring an individual to agree to keep the peace and to abide by other specific conditions. These amendments would clarify that, when issuing a recognizance order or a promise to keep the peace, a judge can impose any conditions that he or she feels are necessary to secure the good conduct of the defendant. The amendments would also extend the maximum length of the order from 12 months to 24 months, if the defendant had been previously convicted of a criminal organization offence. These amendments also relate to those who are suspected will commit a terrorist offence or an intimidation of justice system participant offence.
These elements of Bill C-14 offer important tools because they seek to prevent the commission of organized crime offences before they take place. They can be an extremely useful tool for police in controlling gang activity, and these amendments will ensure that the orders are used as they were intended.
Police in Ontario use these provisions as part of their gang strategy to control the “small fry” in a gang. The prosecution witness that the committee heard from suggested that Quebec will start using this new provision in Bill C-14 as part of its own street gang strategy.
I am pleased that Bill C-14 has been thoroughly examined by the justice committee and that we are rapidly approaching our goal of seeing this legislation passed into law.
This government has made the safety and security of Canadians a priority. I am confident that Bill C-14 is a strong and urgently needed step in the right direction and I urge all honourable members to support its passage.
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, organized crime gangs are both a national and a transnational problem. Up to 70% of the moneys that organized crime gangs derive comes from the trade in illegal drugs. They use those moneys to do other things, such as purchase and import illegal drugs. My province of British Columbia is seeing the effects of this, in bloody terms, with more than 19 murders this year.
Paul Krugman, a Nobel Laureate, made a very impressive statement. He said that if we wanted to go after organized crime, would should go after the money.
The best way to undermine organized crime is to dismantle its markets and go after its money supply. One of the ways to do that is to address the issue of drug policy in Canada.
If undermining the drug market for organized crime is one of the best ways to get rid of organized crime gangs, would my colleague try to curry favour in his party to a revised approach to substance abuse in Canada and pursue the decriminalization of the simple possession of marijuana? Would he encourage his government to look at Norway and Portugal as examples? Those countries have significantly undermined organized crime gangs and reduced the use of both hard and soft drugs, which in turn has reduced crime.
Would he also ask his government to remove its legal appeal against British Columbia? The courts have said that the government has a moral obligation to allow harm reduction strategies like Insite and the Naomi project to have national exposure.
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his interest in this bill.
His question is quite fair and appropriate. People from his province, British Columbia, have appeared before our committee. Representatives from the Vancouver Board of Trade told us that they wanted specifically to attack the element that is contributing to the wealth of all forms of organized crime, whether the Hells Angels, the mafia, and so on. We must attack the drug trade; that is important. If we cut off those organizations' source of revenue, if we are tough on that, if we can stop the drug trade, we will prevent such groups from operating, growing and terrorizing our communities. That is what we need to do.
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Speaker, my friend and I are on justice committee. We have heard from a substantial number of witnesses, none the least of whom came from the home province of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and the city of Vancouver.
My colleague might want to expound on the fact that the committee is going to Vancouver to study the very issues surrounding drug crime, gangs and organized crime.
It was made mention to drug and substance abuse, the addiction thereto and the large sums of money that the government has put forward for treatment. I do not mean giving people drugs, but giving them the kind of necessary counselling to help them shrug the habit. Could the member expound on that?
Could he also expound on some of the witness statements we received, which run counter to legalizing marijuana? If we legalize a problem, for example, marijuana, do we then say a bit of crack cocaine is okay provided a person does not have X amount?
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague through you. We both sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and his extensive experience as a former police officer is truly appreciated. He presents the viewpoint of the officers who enforce our laws.
I would like to point out that the committee will be going to Vancouver, where organized crime is flourishing, because of a special request from British Columbia. There are gunshots on the streets and drive-by shootings there. The situation is so serious that members of the Chamber of Commerce, a non-governmental organization, are asking Parliament to visit to see how dangerous the city has become.
I would like to mention something else in reply to my colleague's question. Despite everything that is being said, our government is pursuing two objectives. Addicts will get treatment but traffickers will be jailed. Canadians must realize that. We will heal drug addicts but we will put traffickers in jail. That is for sure.
I would also like to say, in response to my colleague's question, that our government has provided a great deal of money to help addicts. We are not going to lock up addicts; we are going to heal them. I can assure you that our government will lock up traffickers. We are known for being very strong in that area. That is what we must do and that is what the citizens of Vancouver have asked us to do. For that reason we are going to Vancouver to see for ourselves whether organized crime is truly becoming stronger. We want to eliminate sources of income for organized gangs, the mafia and such groups by combatting the drug trade.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the issue of mandatory minimums has seized Parliament on a number of occasions. I note that paragraph 244(2)(i) deals with intentionally discharging a firearm. Under the mandatory minimums, it says that if it is a prohibited firearm, the mandatory minimum is five years for a first offence and seven years for a second or subsequent offences. However, if it is not a restricted firearm, it is four years.
With respect to the use of firearms, whether restricted or not, and the mandatory minimums, why is there a difference of one year when it would appear, from a public safety and criminal justice perspective, that the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence related to organized crime is equally as serious to the public interest?
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interest in Bill C-14 whose purpose is to protect the public.
The citizens of his riding will be pleased, since they too want to feel safe. We are here to work together to ensure the safety of all our citizens. Many people say that mandatory minimum sentences will leave judges with very little flexibility; however, we must bear in mind that they are meant to send a clear message to criminals, specifically, that we are serious and we condemn certain actions, such as drive-by shootings and intentional discharge of a firearm.
We have seen some complacency in the past. We, however, intend to show that we are taking serious action against organized crime. When people involved in organized crime see that Parliament is beginning to give in, it grows stronger. When they see that Parliament and parliamentarians will not give in, that we are taking a stand, they are the ones who will give in, and that is our goal.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's comments.
We both sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He is quite right. We have heard a number of witnesses speak about Bill C-14. These witnesses reminded us of the importance of taking action, especially given the current situation in several major cities, where there has been an increase in organized crime attacks using rifles. For example, the tragedies that have been unfolding in Vancouver over the past few months have really captured the public's attention and public concern is growing steadily.
I do not intend to speak for a long time. I had the opportunity to speak at second reading of this bill. As there were no amendments in committee, this bill has remained unchanged since second reading in this Parliament. You might remember the excellent speech that I gave on this bill. Since nothing has changed, I intend to be brief on this Friday morning.
The one thing that is important to underline with respect to Bill C-14 is the cooperation that all parties showed in passing this important legislation. When the legislation was introduced, the Minister of Justice said that the opposition parties would obstruct and delay the bill and that the government was very much concerned that it will become very complicated to get it through the House of Commons.
However, we saw the exact opposite in this place. When an issue of public security, as important as the fight against organized crime, is on the floor of the House of Commons, all parties showed a great deal of willingness to pass the legislation. The legislation, in our view, was a responsible and balanced measure to deal with the very difficult circumstance of gun violence in an organized crime context and the protection of peace officers and those in the judicial system.
I will remind the House that the legislation does four things. It would create sentencing provisions so that every murder committed in connection with a criminal organization is considered first degree murder regardless of whether there was premeditation. It would create a drive-by shooting offence, the discharge of a firearm with recklessness, and would impose a four-year mandatory prison sentence on someone convicted under that offence. It would create a mandatory minimum sentence with respect to assaulting a peace officer, an aggravated assault or an assault with a weapon of a peace officer or those who work in the judicial system. It also would extend the duration of recognizance for up to two years for a person who has previously been convicted of a gang related offence.
Those are four important measures. In our view, the legislation seeks to reassure the public and to send a clear message that Parliament will be very diligent with respect to the fight against organized crime.
However, what the legislation does not do is deal with the difficult problem of prevention, of giving the police the tools they need to pursue the gang members and those who are involved in organized crime. The government likes to focus on the sentencing provisions. Every time government members have a chance, they talk about how they have toughened up sentences, increased penalties and imposed mandatory minimums.
We do not disagree that that is part of the solution. As long as they are balanced and appropriate, they can be part of a comprehensive approach to deal with the very difficult problem of organized crime. However, it is not the final answer to that difficult problem when police are telling us that they desperately need to modernize the investigative techniques at their disposal and that they need lawful access legislation that allows them, in a 21st century way, with, obviously, the provision of a court order, to have electronic surveillance on communications by different gang members.
In the old days, when the police could get a wiretap order from a judge and listen to someone's home telephone attached to the wall in the kitchen, those days are over. The communication capacities of these organized criminal gangs are such that the investigative techniques that the police officers require to investigate and then prosecute these criminals need modernization.
One of the challenges in prosecuting an organized crime member, particularly with respect to a very violent crime or a murder, is often the reluctance of witnesses to come forward. There can be a terrible situation where people in broad daylight in a residential area or in a shopping centre will witness either a violent crime or a shooting and then when the police do an investigation and try to have witnesses give statements and ultimately testify once charges are laid, it becomes very difficult to get these people to testify because of the fear of reprisals.
Therefore, part of an investigation requires the ability to access electronic surveillance and exchanges of emails on blackberries or direct transmissions from one blackberry device to another. Our laws have not kept up with those communication instruments.
When the Attorney General of British Columbia came to Ottawa some months ago, one of the things he asked Parliament to move quickly on was modernizing investigative techniques and lawful access. He also asked Parliament to deal with the problem of the two for one remand credit. I am very happy that Bill C-25 was introduced, which the Liberal Party will be supporting as well, once again to limit the extra credit given for remand time while awaiting a trial.
In our view, this legislation represents part of the solution. However, the government needs to spend more time focusing on what it can do to prevent crime and not simply punish somebody who is convicted once there is already a victim. The tragedy with crimes committed in accordance with Bill C-14 is that hey will be among the most violent and dangerous crimes because they are associated with criminal gangs. Once a charge is laid under these new provisions, a tragedy, without doubt, has taken place.
We will see victims of these organized criminal gangs on television and in our communities. At that point, it is important for those convicted of these crimes to face stiff penalties. However, we think it is equally important to ask those communities what tools, what law enforcement agencies, what social programs, what educational institutions and what addiction programs they need from us to prevent people being victims, which, ultimately, will make communities much safer.
As I mentioned, the Liberal Party supported this bill.
We plan on continuing to work with the other political parties in this Parliament when balanced and responsible measures to improve public safety throughout the country are introduced. But we will also insist at all times that there be a balance between imposing harsh penalties for the most serious criminal offences and providing provincial and municipal authorities and police forces with the tools they need to prevent crime.
We must help them to take action before citizens become victims or unfortunate situations arise such as those we have seen in major Canadian cities in recent months.
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a number of issues that police officers in my province and across the country have been raising. He clearly articulated the asks from our Attorney General in British Columbia. In British Columbia, which, like the rest of the country but perhaps more so in my province, has very serious problem of organized crime.
I would like the member to expand on the challenges that police officers have in terms of being able to wiretap and follow electronic communications, and the ways in which they are able to improve the manner in which prosecutions take place.
We have a serious challenge right now I know police officers are very frustrated with the manner in which prosecutions take place within our courts.
The other question I have for him goes back to the discourse that took place a little while ago between members of the Conservative Party which illustrated the difference in approach we have on a serious underlying issue affecting organized crime.
In many ways we are dealing with the symptoms of the problem and not the underlying problem. As I said, I go back to Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate for economics, who said, “If you want to go after organized crime, you've got to go after their financial underpinnings”. That is the worst news that organized crime could ever have.
As one of my colleagues from the Conservative Party said, we need to enable people to shrug off addictions. Well, it is not as simple as that. As a physician, addictions are very complicated. They are rooted in neurochemical changes in the brain and extremely difficult to deal with. Many of the people who have substance abuse problems have what we call dual diagnosis. They also have a psychiatric problem.
Some very innovative addiction programs have been implemented. One of them in British Columbia is the NAOMI project started by Dr. Julio Montaner. it is a narcotics substitution program where under a physician's care the person actually receives a narcotic, which severs the tie between the addict and the crime that he or she engages in on the street, and the ties to organized crime.
What was found is that 60% of those hard-core narcotics addicts were off the street, back with their families and leading a life that was within the law. They were able to get back to work and get this treatment that they required.
Unfortunately, the government opposes that. In fact, it is using judicial means and mechanisms to prevent communities in our country from getting access to the medically proven, harm reduction strategies that work and, ultimately, reduce crime, reduce harm, reduce costs and reduce all the things that all of us want to accomplish.
Does my friend, who is a lawyer, not think that the government has a moral obligation to allow communities across our country to have access to the medically proven, harm reduction strategies that work, like the North American opiate medication initiative, the NAOMI project, in Vancouver?
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca used the term “moral obligation”; does the government have a moral obligation. I think he would agree with me that it had a moral obligation to intervene in the case of a Canadian on death row in Montana. It took a federal court to force it to do that. The Conservatives had a moral obligation to deal with the case of Omar Khadr, who is still at Guantanamo Bay, a Canadian citizen who was a child soldier. It took the federal court yesterday to force them to do that.
I do not have a lot of confidence that the Conservative government accepts it has a moral obligation, as my colleague from British Columbia so correctly identified, to treat the addiction problem as one of health. My colleague, being a physician, knows more than I would about some of the medical aspects of addiction, but what I do know is that in British Columbia there have been a number of very progressive initiatives, whether it is Insite in Vancouver or whether it is the project he spoke about a minute ago. These initiatives have been supported by public health officials, by provincial law enforcement officials, by the Government of British Columbia. In our view, they are a very important part of dealing with crime prevention, treating the root cause of crime, which in many cases can be addiction, or as my colleague noted, in some cases can also involve a complex or difficult mental illness.
The Conservative government focuses on punishing those who commit crimes, instead of trying to help prevent crimes and deal with some of the root causes of crimes, such as addiction. Conservatives talk about an announcement they made some years ago about a drug strategy. That will do very little compared to supporting public health authorities and the provincial government of British Columbia in the example my colleague used.
My colleague also spoke about the issue of modernizing investigative techniques, lawful access, as it is known. He is absolutely right. The government has hesitated and has taken a great deal of time to introduce a bill that would modernize the ability of the police to deal with electronic surveillance of organized crime groups in a way that recognizes 21st century technology and not technology or instruments of communication that may have been around 50 years ago.
My colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has a private member's bill that deals with exactly that issue. I think it was in 2005 that the then minister of public safety in a previous Liberal government introduced a bill, which was not passed by the time the 2005-06 election was called, to modernize investigative techniques and to give the police the tools they desperately need to go after these organized crime groups.
I agree with my colleague. There is very much a hesitation on the part of the government to complete the puzzle. Conservatives focus on one narrow band of the problem and we supported them with respect to increasing penalties, but we also believe they need a more comprehensive approach and they need to accept that harm reduction on addictions and some of the health-based research and projects that have begun in some parts of the country also form a very important part of reducing crime and helping people live healthy and productive lives.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the previous questioner who is a medical doctor when he observed that we have to go after the financial underpinnings of this issue. The best thing we can do to fight organized crime is to take away the proceeds of crime, the benefits and gains they make as a result of crime. The Conservatives really enjoy the public relations bump they get from talking about how tough they are on crime, and we see that they are not really that tough. It takes them forever to get actions before the House and they fail to deal with the root causes of the crime. In this particular case, the member is dead on when he says that if we can take steps to fight organized crime, that will help solve this problem.
In Manitoba, we had one day last month where we had zero auto thefts, after being the auto theft capital of Canada for a number of years, because we set up a system whereby we have enforced immobilizers in cars. The auto insurance company in Manitoba pays for the installation of immobilizers and gives people a reduction in their car insurance. We have a suppression program, too, to chase down the chronic car thieves. We have managed to cut that down to having no car thefts over a 24-hour period last month. So there is proof that we can actually achieve results if we are determined to do something about the problem.