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. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
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.
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Madam Speaker, I want to commend our justice minister for everything that he pointed out here today.
The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to speak to the House when you have been in the chair. I congratulate you on your appointment as Acting Speaker.
I am very happy to speak on behalf of the Liberal opposition on Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants).
Let me be very clear at the outset: the Liberal Party will be supporting Bill C-14. In fact, the Liberal Party offered to work with the government to expedite the passage not only of Bill C-14, but of the companion Bill C-15, which amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. We see this debate as important, but we also see a need to be expeditious and to ensure that these measures are adopted in due course, without undue obstruction or delay.
The Liberal Party views the improvements brought in Bill C-14 as modest measures. We see them as needed to address the real concern for public safety, particularly in communities that have seen the devastating effects and associated violence of organized crime, most recently in Vancouver. We think the government could have gone further in a number of measures. I will be addressing those in a few minutes.
Basically, Bill C-14 seeks to make four changes. It changes the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code so that every murder committed in connection with a criminal organization is to be considered first-degree murder, regardless of whether there was premeditation. It creates a separate drive-by shooting offence, with a minimum mandatory sentence of four years.
The minister likes to talk about creating this important drive-by shooting offence. If he is honest, he will hardly be able to say that it is a glaring hole in the Criminal Code at present. Anybody who engages in such reckless criminal behaviour as a drive-by shooting surely would be facing severe criminal penalties now. However, if the bill provides a measure of assurance to the public that there would be a separate offence with a four-year mandatory minimum sentence, the Liberal Party sees that as reasonable.
Bill C-14 also creates mandatory minimum sentences for the offences of assault with a weapon and aggravated assault on a peace officer, and it seeks to protect others who work in the criminal justice system, including prosecutors and judges. It extends the duration of recognizance by two years for a person who has previously been convicted of a gang-related or terrorism offence or who is suspected of planning a similar offence.
We in the Liberal Party recognize that the measures in Bill C-14 are modest, but necessary to reassure the public, which is increasingly concerned about public safety in certain communities. Vancouver, recently, and, in the past, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and even Halifax, in the Maritimes, where I come from, have had problems with gangsterism and organized crime. This is a real concern for people.
To some degree, the Prime Minister and the minister himself, in their discussions on changes to the Criminal Code are always looking for confrontation. They try to turn the dicussions into partisan matters. They say the government supports these measures but that we in opposition keep trying to block, delay or prevent the passage of them. That is why I am pleased to be able to say the Liberal Party offered to fast-track passage of Bill C-14 and Bill C-15, two bills we will support.
It is often useful to examine a bill from the standpoint of what is not in it.
What specific items might the government have included in Bill C-14 that it did not put in?
We are particularly worried about the three requests the Government of British Columbia made. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General of British Columbia made these requests when they were in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago.
They met with opposition parties and members of the government. They asked Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to reduce the two-for-one remand credit. When somebody is incarcerated before a trial or a conviction because the person has been denied bail or chooses to waive bail and in fact is in a detention centre prior to a trial, often the courts will count the time spent in pre-trial custody as two days for every one day of a sentence, which leads to certain public consternation. When a sentence is ultimately imposed by the judge, the judge often reduces the sentence by a large factor for pre-trial custody.
In the view of the Government of British Columbia and in our view, that can be reduced. We can legislatively restrict the ability of the courts to allow for that two-for-one credit. We are told that in some jurisdictions, it can be as high as three for one, and we think it has become an abuse of the justice system.
The Government of British Columbia also asked for improvements to lawful access and to modernize investigative techniques. Often members of organized crime have the latest communications equipment and the most sophisticated electronic communications. Our laws with respect to search warrants and electronic surveillance have not kept up with this new technology. Improvements can be made to criminal legislation to allow police, when they get a search warrant, to be able to gain access to communications on cellphones, in emails or on wireless communication devices such as BlackBerrys.
My colleague, the Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, has a private member's bill that seeks to do exactly this. A Liberal bill introduced by the previous Liberal government in 2005 sought to modernize investigative techniques. There again the government chose not to move on that.
The government may decide to introduce legislation to deal with the remand credit, to deal with modernizing investigative techniques, and to look at the issue of disclosure, which has become a huge burden on provincial justice systems. These are the three things we heard the Attorney General of British Columbia cite as being priorities to deal with the crisis there. If the government decides to move on those issues, we would work with it to expeditiously pass reasonable measures to deal with those issues as well.
We were somewhat disappointed by Bill C-14 and have described its measures as modest, because the bill is silent on these improvements.
One of the difficulties we have also with the Conservatives' approach to criminal justice is that they obsessively focus on the back end of the problem. They like to talk about more severe punishment. They like to talk about stiffer sentences.
Those improvements have their place in a criminal justice system, and we acknowledge that if they are balanced and reasonable, we can in fact improve criminal legislation to deal with the worst offenders and the most serious crimes.
However, what they never talk about is the other part of the criminal justice system: prevention.
The Conservatives like to have a policy that punishes the offender once there is already a victim, instead of taking increased steps to work with police, community groups, provincial governments and not-for-profit groups that want to do things in the community to try to reduce and prevent crime before there is a victim. In cases of organized crime, victims often face tragic consequences, including serious violence or loss of life.
If one talks about getting tough on crime, one has to accept that we also need, for example, to work with provincial governments on difficult issues such as mental health and addictions. If there is a great shortage of in-patient addiction facilities in my province of New Brunswick and an inadequate mental health system to deal with criminal justice circumstances, then communities are not as safe as they could be if the Government of Canada worked with the Province of New Brunswick and other provinces to meet their specific needs.
The Province of New Brunswick is looking at setting up a drug court. In certain cases involving drug addicts who have not participated in organized crime or violent offences, such a court may offer a sentencing regime that will deal with the root cause of their criminal activity, their addiction, and thus make the community safer by bringing about treatment and, hopefully, a cure for somebody who faces something as difficult as a serious drug addiction.
These are important elements of a criminal justice plan as well, but the government consistently fails to advocate in favour of greater resources for police or greater resources to help provinces with a shortage of crown prosecutors, or to work with provinces to improve mental health services, addiction services or youth programs, which are often essential in improving the security of a community.
We consider these matters just as important as the legitimate desire of the public to have teeth added not only to the Criminal Code but particularly to the sentences given criminals who commit the most serious crimes.
Instead of introducing a number of measures at once, the minister insists on bringing us his bills one at a time. Is it because the Conservatives have nothing else on their legislative agenda? Is it because they are still trying to make criminal justice announcements to override the bad economic news Canadians now read and hear about almost daily? We do not know, but if the Conservatives insist on turning these matters into partisan debates, they will end up undermining their own idea of passing bills to improve public safety.
I will conclude by saying every member of the House must accept the responsibility to improve the safety of all our communities. I represent a rural community in New Brunswick. The largest town is probably Sackville, New Brunswick, where Mount Allison University is located. It has a population of around 5,000 people. Other members in the House represent some very large metropolitan areas, some of Canada's largest and most dynamic cities, and they are seeing very difficult challenges around organized crime and violent crime.
I say that if we work together cooperatively in a balanced and measured way, we can collectively make improvements to criminal legislation that will make communities safer. At the same time, we can respect the individual rights of Canadians and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We can also do a lot more around preventing crime, as well as around preventing victims from being created and thus having to punish an accused person.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
March 12th, 2009 / 4:10 p.m.
See
context
Saint Boniface Manitoba
Conservative
Shelly Glover ConservativeParliamentary Secretary for Official Languages
Madam Speaker, I want to point out that I also believe there is no greater responsibility for any government than to protect its citizens. The safety and security of citizens is at the forefront of what our government is trying to do.
I would point out that we have addressed many issues that our police services have asked for. As a former police officer, I believe very strongly in the measures that have been brought forward by this government.
I would like to ask the member why, during his party's 13 years in power, his government did not address these very serious things, such as mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes, the reverse-onus situation and the age of protection. Why did you get none of that done during your 13 years, and now you choose to criticize the fact that we have finally moved things forward?
You also never mentioned victims, and I assure you that I stand here because victims are at the forefront of everything I do in justice. I would remind you that under your government, the Youth Criminal Justice Act was brought forward, an act that completely devastated families and our youth. I ask you why you have done nothing to support measures to change that either.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Madam Speaker, the member in her question kept referring to “your government” and why “you” did nothing. I would not purport to say that you have done nothing about organized crime and you have not been tough on crime. I hope the member did not mean to cast aspersions on you.
When the member pretended, as those members always do, that the previous Liberal government did not do enough, she may not have been in the House when the member for Hochelaga made reference to a very important improvement that the previous Liberal government made with respect to creating organized crime legislation in Canada as response to the tragedy, in many ways, that Quebec was seeing with organized crime about 10 years ago. I think the member for Hochelaga was very pleased that Parliament adopted those measures under a Liberal government.
The member forgets, for example, that a previous Liberal government dealt with the reverse onus on serious gun crimes. A previous Liberal government always took public safety seriously. What we did not do was seek to take public concern and the tragedy of violent crime and turn it into a partisan issue, with empty rhetoric, and pretend somehow that we alone had the virtue in wanting to make communities safer.
The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
I would ask all members to address their comments through the Chair and in the third person to their colleagues.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hochelaga.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Madam Speaker, the Lord knows you are a fine example of femininity.
I am not explaining my confusion very well and I am sorry. I find it hard to understand why they want to turn this into a partisan debate when lives are being destroyed in some of our communities and it is important for us to work together and cooperate.
TheMinister of Justice rose a little while ago—you were in the Chair, Madam Speaker—and was disrespectful to me. I do not want to make too much out of it, but implying that some people are less concerned than others about the organized crime problem is very nasty.
I want to ask this of the hon. member for Beauséjour. In times like these, when communities all over Quebec and Canada are badly hurt by the threats looming over them, has the time not come to be cooperative and non-partisan?
Should we not put a stop to the nastiness so characteristic of some members who think certain people are sensitive while others are not?
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Hochelaga for his question. I share his sentiments exactly. I have had the privilege of working on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with a number of members, including the Bloc Québécois justice critic, the hon. member for Hochelaga. I think we work well together on improving Canadian legislation, especially in regard to the safety of our communities.
The hon. member for Hochelaga is certainly sincerely concerned about public safety, although the Conservative members might not often be as sensitive as he is or as I am, for example, to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If we are going to work together on improving the Criminal Code, we should do so in a collegial way with the interests of our communities uppermost in our minds. The Conservatives always insist on turning these situations into partisan wrangling.
Ultimately, it was probably because the minister referred in his speech to the antiterrorism bill he introduced today, forgetting to mention that it died on the order paper two years ago. Suddenly the Conservatives decided today to re-introduce a bill they have ignored for two years. It is often just a diversion, a way of trying to distract attention.
I think it is because we are going through very difficult times and the government does not have any answers. It is trying to hide its economic ineptitude.
I fully agree with the hon. member for Hochelaga that we should have serious debates on these issues, focusing on improving public safety, and not just partisan wrangling.
Rob Clarke Conservative Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Madam Speaker, we are talking about protecting Canadian citizens and the victims. Why did the Liberals bring in the gun registry? We have more police officers dying on the job because the gun registry came into effect.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised to hear the member say that more people are dying because the gun registry came into effect. That makes no sense at all.
The Conservatives have always had a hidden agenda to gut control legislation. They try to introduce a number of bills aimed at weakening gun control legislation in Canada. They do not have the courage to bring it in as a government bill and take the responsibility for telling Canadians and victims of crimes that they do not believe in gun control. What they prefer to do is use private members' bills and amnesties to basically gut an instrument that Canadian police officers use thousands of times a day.
The member talked about gun control. There is a private member's bill before the House that deals with gun control legislation. The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs has called on all parties to vote against the Conservative private member's bill, which seeks to weaken the gun registry and gun control.
If, somehow, this has lead to the death of police officers and citizens, it is news to the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his tone in this debate.
I remind the government members, and the minister in particular, that histrionics do not criminal law better make.
It is important for us to remember that the Conservative Party is doing what it does best. It is rallying around its mantra of trying to frighten Canadians. It is rallying around its mantra of creating the crisis. All of this, and I ask my colleague to respond to it, because it simply cannot deal with the emerging economic crisis which is weighing upon it.
As a result, the Conservatives have to mount their 50,000 square foot fear factory in my riding, their campaign headquarters, and begin to try and turn everybody's attention away from the economic realities of hundreds of thousands of job losses. Rather than deal with the insecurity Canadians feel, they torque up their law and order agenda.
Does my colleague think that is the way we should approach these important issues and how might he present this otherwise?