Bill C-14 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants)

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.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on the extension of hours. I take the government House leader at his word. I believe he is sincere when he says he is disappointed that he is not able to speak at greater length. However, I did not see that same degree of disappointment on the face of his colleagues.

I think we can frame the debate this way. As a hockey nation, Canada is seized by the playoffs. We are in the midst of the finals right now, and we are seeing a great series between the Detroit Red Wings and the Pittsburgh Penguins.

I know the people in Cape Breton—Canso are watching this with great interest, as Marc-Andre Fleury, formerly from the Cape Breton Screaming Eagles, who had a rough night the other night, and Sidney Crosby, from the Cole Harbour area, are still in the thick of things. They are looking forward to seeing the outcome of tonight's game.

I am going to use the hockey analogy. If we look at the last game--and I know the member for West Vancouver is a big hockey nut--with a five to nothing outcome, what the government House leader is asking to do would be similar to Sidney Crosby going to the referee after a five to nothing score at the end of the third period and saying, “Can we play overtime?”.

The die has been cast on government legislation through this Parliament. Pittsburgh did nothing in the first two periods that would warrant any consideration for overtime. Maybe if they had done the work in the earlier periods, they could have pushed for a tie and overtime, but there was nothing done. Certainly there was every opportunity for the government to bring forward legislation, and it missed at every opportunity.

Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said, “You know, they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”.

If there is such importance now in passing this legislation, we can look back, even to last summer, when every Canadian knew, every economist knew and every opinion rendered then was that we were heading for a tough economic downturn and the Prime Minister took it upon himself, with total disregard for his own law that he advocated and passed, that elections are to be held every four years, to drop the writ and go to the polls in the fall.

During that period, the economy continued to sputter, Canadians lost jobs and hardship was brought upon the people of Canada. It was an unnecessary election. Nonetheless, we went to the polls and a decision was rendered by the people of Canada.

We came back to the House. We thought at that time that the government would accept and embrace its responsibility and come forward with some type of measure that would stop the bleeding in the Canadian economy. We understood that there were global impacts. We felt it was the responsibility of the government to come forward with some incentive or stimulus, a program that would at least soften the blow to Canadians who had lost their jobs.

However, it came out with an ideological update, and it threw this House into turmoil and chaos. I have never seen anything like it in my nine years in the House.

It is not too often that we get parties to unite on a single issue. However, the opposition parties came together because they knew that Canadians would not stand for the total disregard for the Canadian economy exhibited by the government through its economic update. Canadians had to make a strong point.

In an unprecedented move, the NDP and the Liberal Party, supported by the Bloc, came together and sent the message to the government that this was not acceptable, that it was going to hurt our country and hurt Canadians. We saw the coalition come together.

There were all kinds of opportunities for the Prime Minister. The decision he made was to see the Governor General and to prorogue Parliament, to shut down the operation of this chamber, to shut down the business of Canada for a seven-week period. For seven weeks there was no legislation brought forward. If we are looking at opportunities to bring forward legislation, I am looking back at the missed opportunities. That was truly unfortunate.

The House leader mentioned that there has been co-operation. I do not argue that point at all. When the budget finally was put together and presented in the House we, as a party, and our leader, thought the responsible thing was to do whatever we could to help as the economy continued to implode and sputter.

Jobs were still bleeding from many industries in this country. We saw the devastation in forestry. We saw the impacts in the auto industry. People's entire careers and communities were cast aside. Time was of the essence, so we thought the responsible thing was to look at the good aspects of the budget and support them. There was ample opportunity to find fault in any aspect of the budget, and it could have had holes poked in it, but we thought the single best thing we could do was to make sure that some of these projects were able to go forward, that some of the stimulus would be able to get into the economy so that Canadians' jobs could be saved and the pain could be cushioned somewhat.We stood and supported the budget, but we put the government on probation at that time.

We continue to see the government's inability to get that stimulus into the economy. The evidence is significant. The FCM, the mayors of the major cities, premiers of provinces, groups advocating for particular projects for a great number of months are looking for the dollars to roll out and they are wondering when that will be. It is just not happening. There is great concern.

We do know that part of the problem is the Prime Minister's and the government's inability to recognize the severity of the problem. When we look at some of the comments over that period of time that we were thrust in the midst of an election, a TD report, on September 8, 2008, said, “...we believe the global economy is on the brink of a mild recession”. Scotiabank forecasted recessions in both U.S. and Canada.

The Prime Minister was denying it back then and saying there was going to be a small surplus. In November he said we were going to have a balanced budget. Then with the budget, he said maybe there will be a small deficit. With the ability of the Conservatives to calculate and their ability with numbers, we can see how far the government has fallen short, because the week before last we saw that a $50 billion deficit is now anticipated this year.

For the people at home, people who pay attention to these issues, that $50 billion is significant.

Just to get our heads around it, I remember three weeks back there was a very fortunate group from Edmonton who threw their toonies on the table and bought some quick picks and the next day they won $49 million. They won the lottery and that was great. If they were feeling charitable and brought that $49 million to the Minister of Finance to apply to the deficit, and then the next day they bought another bunch of tickets and won another $49 million and gave it to the finance minister, if they were to do that day after day, week after week, month after month, and if we factor in that we do not charge interest on this deficit, it would take 20 years to pay off that $50 billion deficit.

That deficit was supposed to be a small one. Two months before that, it was supposed to be a balanced budget; and two months before that, there was supposed to be a small surplus.

We have done our best. We have worked with the government as best we can to try to get that stimulus into the economy, to try to help generate some kind of economic activity within this country so that jobs can be saved and Canadians can continue to work. We know that we have had some successes here. Some 65% of the legislation put forward by the government has been passed.

We have worked with the government. We supported the war veterans allowance and the farm loans bill. Bill C-25, one of the justice bills, came through here the other day and was passed unanimously on a voice vote. We had Bill C-15 last night and we had the budget.

Regarding extending the hours, disregarding whether it was incompetence or whatever the political reasons and the rationale were to call the election and to shut down government through the prorogation, there were plenty of opportunities to avoid that and bring forward legislation.

I thought the government House leader was generous in his comments last week when he himself recognized in his comments on the Thursday question:

...I would like to recognize that, to date at least, there has been good co-operation from the opposition in moving our legislative agenda forward, not only in this chamber but in the other place as well.

That shocked a lot of people on this side of the chamber.

He continued:

I want to thank the opposition for that co-operation.

We have certainly done our part over here, but we have great concern about the extension of the hours and the additional costs with that. We think the legislation that is coming forward now in various stages can be addressed during the normal times here. Certainly on this side of the House we want to make this chamber work. We want to make this Parliament work and will do all in our power to do so.

As of last night, seven of eight bills originating in the House, for which the government wants royal assent by June 23, have been sent to the other place.

Bill C-7, on the Marine Liability Act, passed third reading in this House on May 14. The transportation and communications committee in the other place is holding hearings on that now, so that is fairly far down the road.

Bill C-14, concerning organized crime and the protection of the justice system, passed third reading in the House on April 24, and it is in committee right now in the other place.

Bill C-15 just passed third reading. That is on the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts that relate to the environment and to enact provisions respecting the enforcement of certain Acts that relate to the environment, passed third reading on May 13, and committees are already being held in the Senate.

We want to try to continue to work in these last days of the session. Certainly we want to continue to nurture and support the relationship on legislation that we can believe in, that is not totally offensive. In a minority Parliament, sometimes all parties have to put a little bit of water in their wine. We are certainly willing to do that. In our past record we have demonstrated that we are willing to do that and we will continue to do so.

However, we have a great deal of difficulty with regard to the extension of hours. We are not sure about the other two opposition parties, but just judging by the questions that were being posed today, I would think they are probably like-minded in this area and they are concerned about this proposal being put forward by the government.

We will be opposing the extension of the hours, and that is how we will vote on this particular issue.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following motion. I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), except for Friday, June 12 and Friday, June 19, 2009, commencing on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 and concluding on Tuesday, June 23, 2009, the House shall continue to sit until 10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by stating what might be obvious to folks who watch the proceedings of Parliament closely. By and large, I would have to say that this session of Parliament has been quite amicable and cooperative. I appreciate the efforts by the opposition to help the government get its agenda through Parliament.

As I recently said at a fundraising event for the Children's Bridge Foundation, I was reflecting on this place and reflected that this truly is the house of the common people. I also reflected on that word “common”. I thought that during the time of a minority Parliament, it is important for all of us to reflect on what we have in common: the things that we share as legislators regardless of our partisan differences. Regardless of what it is we want to see for Canada, I do believe very sincerely that all legislators and parliamentarians have the best interests of the country at heart.

I think that it is important that we try to work on those things that we have in common. I believe that there have been many instances in the last five or six months in this place when we have done that. I want to begin my remarks by commending the opposition for oftentimes trying to look beyond partisan differences, look to what we have in common, and actually accomplish things for the people of Canada.

While I am pleased with the progress that we have made thus far, not only as a government but as a Parliament working collectively, there is much more that we can accomplish for Canadians. As I have been saying about this cooperative atmosphere that is sometimes prevalent here, I think that some people who watch the daily proceedings of the House of Commons would actually dispute that.

If one were to watch the 45-minute question period every day, one might be surprised to hear me say that we actually work cooperatively and quite well together. While question period serves an important purpose and is the main focus for the media, no acts are amended, no new laws are created, and no funds for important programs are approved during that period of time.

Today, for example, there are 285 minutes dedicated for government legislation and 60 minutes for private members' business. Lots of time and effort goes into these minutes each day. More importantly, they can also be productive minutes. Thus far this session, our House has passed some 25 bills, including Bill C-33, which restores war veterans allowances to Allied veterans and their families. This required all-party consent and we all agreed that this was in the best interests of not only our veterans but the country.

Bill C-14, our bill to fight organized crime, is currently before committee in the other place. Bill C-29, the agricultural loans bill, will guarantee an estimated $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and cooperatives. This is all important legislation that we worked together on to further it along the parliamentary agenda.

Our Standing Orders include a specific provision for the extension of sitting hours during the last two sitting weeks in June. In fact, I reflect on my 16 years in this place. It has often been a point of confusion when members, and especially rookie members, look at the calendar and see the last couple of weeks with asterisks beside the dates. They think that those weeks are disposable somehow, but they are not. They are that way because the government has the right to serve, without notice, the motion that I am moving today to extend hours and work into the evening.

At this point in my remarks, I also want to inject the fact that up until quite recently in parliamentary history, the House of Commons sat into the evening for debate almost every night. It has been a relatively new phenomenon that we do not have evening sittings. The only exceptions to that in the recent Parliaments have been for emergency debates or take note debates. Other than that, we do not usually sit in the evenings. It is quite a new phenomenon.

What I am moving today is not something unusual. These rules provide a mechanism to advance government business before members leave Ottawa to work in their constituencies over the summer.

We have a lot of important work to do before the House rises for the summer. After we subtract the three days for opposition supply days and the time for private members' business, we only have 33 hours and 45 minutes remaining to complete our government business before the House rises on the evening of June 23.

Extending the House sitting hours over the next two weeks would allow us to make progress on government bills, such as: Bill C-26, legislation to tackle property theft, which we expect to receive back from the justice committee this week; Bill C-34, the protecting victims from sexual offenders act, which would strengthen the national sex offender registry to provide the police with more effective tools to protect children from sexual predators; Bill C-35, the justice for victims of terrorism act; Bill C-36, which would repeal the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code so that criminals who commit first or second degree murder will no longer be able to apply for early parole; and Bill C-6, the consumer products safety bill, which was reported from committee yesterday. Adopting this bill would protect the health and safety of Canadians by allowing the recall of unsafe consumer products. I urge members to adopt that bill with the utmost speed when we call it for debate later this week.

Other bills we would like to make progress on include: Bill C-32, which cracks down on tobacco marketing aimed at youth, which received unanimous support at second reading and we hope that health committee can report the bill back shortly so that the House can consider its passage before the summer; and Bill C-23, the Colombia free trade bill.

While not unanimous, I am grateful for the support of most members opposite in enabling the House to pass Bill C-24, the Peru free trade bill. Both Bill C-24 and Bill C-23 would expand market access for Canadian companies at a difficult time. I inject that this is especially important to our farmers who will have new marketing opportunities open up for them because of these two free trade bills.

This is just some of the important work to be done on our government's commitments. It does not take into account additional new legislation that we continue to introduce every week.

I notice the justice minister is sitting here and nodding as I relay a number of justice bills. The Minister of Justice has been extremely active in bringing forward a succession of important justice reforms. This is one of the reasons that I ran for Parliament 16 years ago. I know many legislators on both sides of the House hold near and dear to their hearts the importance of protecting victims and their families and of reforming and changing the justice system in our country to ensure that criminals are held accountable for their actions.

My intent regarding this period of extension would be, and I have discussed this with the opposition House leaders and whips, to set a goal each day as to what we wanted to accomplish. When we accomplished that goal, we would adjourn for the day. Even though the motion says that we would sit until 10 o'clock Monday to Thursday, it may not be necessary to sit until 10. We could work co-operatively and collectively together. If we actually achieved our goals that day at 7 o'clock or 7:20 p.m., we would see the clock at 10 and the House would rise. I think that is reasonable.

I am asking for a simple management tool to maximize our progress with the weeks that are left, a little over two weeks. I am not asking for a shortcut. I am not asking to curtail debate. I am proposing that we work a little harder to get the job done. As I said, I believe I am making a reasonable approach of adjourning each day after we meet modest goals. All parties would agree to these goals. This is not a blank cheque. I cannot adjourn the House without support from the opposition, nor can I prevent an adjournment motion from being adopted without opposition support. The motion has co-operation built right into it.

Sitting late in June is part of the normal process, as I referred to earlier. It is one of the procedures required to make Parliament work and be more efficient. According to the Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons:

Although this Standing Order dates back only to 1982, it reflects a long-standing practice which, in its variations, has existed since Confederation. The practice has meant that in virtually every session since 1867, in the days leading up to prorogation or, more recently, to the summer adjournment, the House has arranged for longer hours of sitting in order to complete or advance the business still pending.

A motion pursuant to Standing Order 27 has only been refused once and that was last year. Even under the minority government of Paul Martin, the motion had sufficient opposition support to be adopted. There is bound to be some business that one opposition party wants to avoid, but generally there should be enough interest on the part of the opposition to get legislation passed before the summer recess.

The House leader of the official opposition is often on his feet after question period trying to get speedy passage to some of our justice bills. Here is a chance for him, and collectively Parliament, to actually get that done.

The NDP members complain that we accuse them of delaying legislation when all they want to do, or so they say, is put up a few more speakers to a bill. Here again we are giving them the opportunity to do exactly that.

I am therefore seeking the support of all members to extend our sitting hours so that we can complete work on important bills which will address the concerns of Canadians before we adjourn for the summer.

[Superintendent Michel Aubin, Director, Federal and Internatioal Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, and thank you for inviting us here to speak today about this important issue. I had the opportunity to appear before your committee on April 1 to discuss Bill C-14, and I appear before you again today on behalf of the RCMP organized crime program. Fighting organized crime, as we previously testified, is a strategic priority for the RCMP. As a partner in the fight against organized crime, we appreciate the fact that the committee has undertaken this study.

Many of our federal, provincial, and municipal units of the RCMP prioritize the investigation of organized crime where it intersects with their respective areas of responsibility. As well, through our combined forces special enforcement units, the investigative teams target criminal organizations that represent the highest level of harm in their communities.

The position of the RCMP in relation to listing criminal organizations is that we are supportive of this move. We believe that such a measure would increase our efficiency in the fight against organized crime and contribute to building safer communities. I must add that the RCMP believes that any listing of a criminal organization should be done through a criminal trial process.

While my colleagues from CISC and the Sûreté du Quebec will discuss details specific to the Hells Angels, the RCMP's view is that this committee should consider applying this concept across a wider range of well-established criminal organizations. Prior testimony before this committee stated that organized crime is present all over Canada, as well as in many other countries.

Our greatest concern is that there are well-established organizations that have been in existence for decades, if not longer, and that continue to have a impact on all Canadians. Frequently, these organizations rely on the use of intimidation, violence, and corruption of public officials as part of the tools of their trade.

Many of these organizations have become transnational in nature, not only because they peddle their illegal wares in other countries, but also because they work with established cells in other countries to facilitate their activities. Furthermore, in many cases, improvements in technology and globalization have allowed these organized crime groups to remain one step ahead of law enforcement.

An emerging trend that is of concern to us is that organized crime groups are now moving parts of their operations to countries that may not have the legal and/or the law enforcement framework or capacity to adequately address a threat.

Beyond the well-documented violence and crime that threaten the safety and emotional well-being of our citizens, the economic impact of organized crime on our country is staggering and affects everyone. As an example, auto theft alone costs us $1 billion. These are real costs that are incurred by private businesses, which then pass them on to Canadian consumers through higher insurance premiums and banking fees.

I have another example. The World Customs Organization and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimate that 7% to 10% of global trade is derived from counterfeit products alone.

In some instances, organized crime has contributed to the destabilization of governments and infrastructure of foreign countries.

To be more specific, currently in Canada when the RCMP engages in an investigation of a criminal organization, we have to structure the investigation, the case management, and disclosure into three areas: one, proving that a substantive offence or offences have taken place; two, proving that the group itself is a criminal organization; and three, proving the link between the individual or individuals and the organization itself.

Our experience with the legislation has shown that it can be of value when it is applied. An example I would like to mention is Project Colisée in Montreal, which targeted or focused on the activities of traditional organized crime. The investigation lasted five years and resulted at the very end, or very recently, in the top six members of traditional organized crime pleading guilty.

More particularly, these individuals pled guilty to offences such as benefiting from the activities of criminal organizations or participating in the offences of a criminal organization. Since then, a number of other individuals also have pled guilty. However, to reach these results, the Colisée investigation required a tremendous amount of work, resources, and time dedicated to the investigational and disclosure preparation stages. This was required to demonstrate the existence of the criminal organization itself over and above the substantive offences investigations.

The cost of this investigation right up to 2006 was around the $40 million mark. Under the current legislation, if we were to go after this same organization, we would have to repeat much of the same work. This operation clearly reveals the applicability of the current legislation. Having to deploy significant resources to meet the three elements of the investigation would be very challenging and very taxing to our resources. In our view, this would result in a duplication of large amounts of work that has already been completed through the investigation and preparation disclosure.

The threat of organized crime is a challenge not only for Canada, but one that is faced by many other countries. Just as we are doing here, other countries are also looking at ways to address the same issue. As an example, approximately a month ago I met with an assistant commissioner from the South Australia Police, who explained that Australia had recently enacted legislation to better deal with organized crime, to provide courts and law enforcement with better tools to pre-empt the activities of the members of criminal organizations.

I'm not at liberty, and I don't think it would be appropriate for me to speak on the details of their legislation; however, we could facilitate this committee meeting, by video link or whatever, with the resources from Australia.

In conclusion, the RCMP is of the view that the listing of criminal organizations is a measure that would be of great assistance to law enforcement in our fight against organized crime. The current reality facing the law enforcement community is that organized crime is evolving rapidly and expanding its influence, and we must find ways to quickly adapt.

Addressing this reality will require bold moves and prompt action if we wish to gain ground on these criminals. The RCMP is more than willing to be a participant in the elaboration of appropriate measures to address this problem, while at the same time ensuring that the rights of all individuals, as guaranteed through our charter, are respected. The tentacles of organized crime have now extended beyond traditional boundaries and reach more and more into legitimate business. Any new tools that lawmakers can provide to the law enforcement community, such as the listing or scheduling of criminal organizations, to enhance our ability to investigate, disrupt, and prosecute these individuals and organizations would be welcome.

Thank you, sir.

[William Bartlett, Senior Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be with you again.

I'm the team leader for the organized crime team in the criminal law policy section in the Department of Justice, which is, as you know, responsible for amendments to the Criminal Code. With me is Paula Clarke, counsel with the criminal law policy section and a member of the organized crime team.

The Department of Justice has been studying the problem of the evidentiary burden involved in proving a criminal organization offence from the beginning of the development of the criminal organization provisions, now found principally in sections 467.1 to 467.13 of the Criminal Code, as well as in other parts of the code. That was in 2000.

It is an extremely difficult issue. We are continuously monitoring the application of the criminal organization provisions, consulting with prosecutors on whether or not the provisions are useful, and collaborating with provincial and territorial officials on emerging organized crime issues, exploring both legislative and non-legislative options to deal with them.

Most recently we have been studying the idea of approaching one of the evidentiary burdens by listing or scheduling criminal organizations for the purposes of the offences and the other provisions in the code that require the proof of the existence of such an organization. This is one of a number of ideas brought to federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for justice by the Manitoba minister in late 2006. Some of the other ideas brought at the same time have found their way into Bill C-14, which was dealt with very recently by this committee.

The FPT working group on organized crime is a coordinating committee of senior officials in criminal justice. It has looked very hard at this idea, and some other options, over the course of the last year. We have not yet concluded these discussions, but a number of pros and cons have been identified. I know you've heard about some of the potential advantages of such a process, so I will concentrate on some of the concerns that have been raised about the viability and usefulness of such an approach.

We are, however, continuing to examine this idea, and I will briefly set out some of the considerations we have examined, and some of the other alternative options we have looked at. The discussions at the CCSO organized crime working group have also been part of a broader examination of the issue by the Department of Justice. We'll discuss some of our consultations with organized crime prosecutors.

As you heard from Mr. Randall Richmond, a highly respected prosecutor from Quebec, during your examination of Bill C-14, there are certain challenges associated with organized crime prosecutions, one of these being the length of time it can take the prosecution to establish the existence of a criminal organization. It is true that in some cases it has taken a great deal of time to prove this fact beyond a reasonable doubt, although the difficulties and the time involved have varied, depending on such factors as the size and complexity of the criminal organization that is at issue.

The prosecutor must prove this fact in each and every case, as it is a material element of a criminal organization offence, although the same issue will have been faced in other cases involving the same criminal organization. Even then, however, the evidentiary burden will vary in difficulty. Even when groups such as the Hells Angels are involved, the burden may vary depending on whether the crown is alleging that Hells Angels International is the relevant criminal organization—as was the case with the very difficult and lengthy case of Lindsay and Bonner in Ontario—or a local chapter, an affiliated club, or a group of associated people.

On the views of the prosecutors, we have discussed the issue of the evidentiary burden with various and many prosecutors. I would say that most of them have expressed concerns about the ultimate usefulness of a listing approach. These include the prosecutors on the CCSO organized crime working group, prosecutors with extensive experience in these matters, including in the challenges of proving criminal organization offences. These have also included the prosecutors consulted when the department held a prosecutors forum in Ottawa in December 2007 to discuss the organized crime provisions and the issue of listing criminal organization groups was discussed.

All of the prosecutors in attendance were very experienced in dealing with criminal organization defence cases, and the issue of the prosecutorial burden of proving the existence of a criminal organization in all of its forms was discussed in depth. There was consensus that the issue warranted further study, and the CCSO organized crime working group is carrying on that study. These prosecutors in general saw a number of potential problems and were ultimately doubtful that the approach would be beneficial in the end.

They had a number of important messages for us. The first was that the criminal organization provisions are relatively young. They've only been enforced since early 2002. There was a concern that as a depth of experience with these provisions was still being accumulated, further problems could be posed by changing the rules of the game significantly at this point.

The second message was that in their view there was simply no easy way to approach the evidentiary burden inherent in an organized crime prosecution. On a possible listing approach, it was felt that such an approach--or any approach that sought to deal with the burden outside the courtroom in which the charge was being heard--would introduce a whole new line of argument and charter challenges. At the end of the day, even if the approach withstood the challenges, it might not make these prosecutions any easier.

On the third message—this is the good news—they felt that significant progress was being made, and that these prosecutions would become easier and more effective as more experience with them accumulated. They suggested that trying to implement an entirely new approach to the basic evidentiary burden, particularly involving a government designation process taking place outside the courtroom, might only impede that progress at this point.

There are a number of challenges that a government designation process would face. First, the use of a listing process for the organized crime offence would undoubtedly attract a very high level of charter scrutiny. While it is true that such a process exists for the designation of terrorist groups, it is a rather novel one that has not yet been vetted in a challenge. Proving a material element of a criminal offence by reference to a government designation process raises issues involving some of the basic principles concerning proving a criminal case. While we believe the terrorist group listing process should survive a challenge, it might be wiser to await the result of a challenge in the courts before considering extending a similar process to criminal organizations.

Second, although criminal organization offences are very serious criminal matters, they are nonetheless distinct from terrorism cases that have a national security dimension as well as a criminal dimension. The challenges to applying such a process to cases other than terrorism matters could be even greater.

Third, there would be a number of difficulties in showing that the criminal organization in a particular case was identical to a group on the government list. This would even apply when a relatively highly structured group such as Hells Angels was an issue. If you attempted to apply such a process to a much less structured organization such as a street gang, whether the particular group of people that the accused before the court was alleged to have been involved with fell within the designated group could be still be challenged by the defence. Less highly structured groups, particularly street gangs but all sorts of criminal organizations, have varying degrees of structure, identifying characteristics, and organizing principles. The challenges would be varied and much greater in reference to many of them.

The list could even be a bit of a double-edged sword. It might work only for a relatively few of the over 900 criminal organizations that are believed to be active in Canada, such as some of the more highly structured biker gangs--the Hells Angels group that the motion addresses. The fact that other groups were not on the list could be cited by the defence as a fact, casting doubt on whether there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they were indeed criminal organizations.

Bear in mind that according the Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada, there are over 900 of these groups. The Hells Angels are very visible. Some of the other biker groups are very visible. But criminal organizations vary a great deal, and some of the criminal organizations that are posing the greatest challenges now are the street gangs that have very fluid and unstructured organizations.

The existence of a listing process might not even significantly reduce the burden on the police to gather evidence of the existence of a criminal organization. Even though a group was a listed entity, law enforcement would still have to collect evidence for a case to be presented in court, as the listing process in its application to a particular case could still be challenged in any case. Should the court find that the listing decision was not sufficient to prove their group was a criminal organization beyond a reasonable doubt in that particular case, the prosecutor would have to be in a position to prove the issue in the normal way.

It must be said that the concept of a listing approach seems to enjoy much greater support from police than from prosecutors. The prosecutors we have consulted have been of the view that the evidence-gathering approach and burden of the police should remain a rigorous one, regardless of whether or not a listing process exists.

In any case, these are just some of the concerns that have been raised. It does not mean the issue has been resolved. The CCSO organized crime working group will continue to study the issues and will be reporting to FPT deputy ministers and ministers as soon as the examination is concluded.

We're also looking at a range of other possible options, such as allowing a judge to take judicial notice of earlier decisions. This approach would have the advantage of taking one judicial decision and applying it in another case, as opposed to a government designation process falling outside of a courtroom entirely.

Even with that kind of approach, the prosecutors we've talked to still see some challenges. But that's another option we've been looking at, or possibly at legislation that would clarify what sort of evidence could be introduced to prove the existence of a criminal organization. As we go on, we may find more options. The issue of the evidentiary burden is very complex, with a lot of elements, and we will continue to examine it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I'd like to thank you and your officials for your attendance here this afternoon.

Once again, I'd like to congratulate you on all the proposed legislation before the House--Bill C-14, Bill C-15, Bill C-25, and Bill C-26, plus the identity theft bill, the number of which escapes me; I believe it's in the Senate.

Mr. Minister, as you are aware, this committee travelled to Vancouver last week. In Vancouver I had the opportunity, and again subsequently on Monday when we were examining Bill C-15, to ask questions of a Mr. Kirk Tousaw, who was speaking on behalf of the BC Civil Liberties Association and an anti-prohibition league, whose name escapes me. He's also a one-time New Democratic candidate in the electoral district of Vancouver--Quadra.

You might be interested to know...and perhaps you do know, because I know that you and your staff follow these proceedings quite closely. Mr. Tousaw indicated a couple of things that I found disconcerting, to say the least.

First of all, in his view, very hard drugs, very serious chemical substances such as methamphetamine and crack cocaine and even heroin, ought to be legalized. In fact, he indicated to me that, in his view, the entire Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ought to be repealed.

As you might know--if you heard my S.O. 31 in the House today, you will know--a young 14-year-old girl in Edmonton, the city that I represent, recently died, tragically, from an overdose of ecstasy, which she had purchased at West Edmonton Mall, a place that is frequented by children and other young persons. In light of these events, I just wondered if you had any comment on the suggestion that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ought to be repealed and that hard drugs ought to be no longer subject to prohibition.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all the members of the committee for all that you're doing in the justice committee. I know you've been busy and I know you'll continue to be busy. We have a very full agenda, as you know, and I--and I think all Canadians--appreciate all the work you're doing in this area.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to answer any questions you may have with respect to the main estimates.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we are fortunate to have in this country a remarkable legal heritage that is the basis of one of the finest justice systems in the world. The Department of Justice has the responsibility of supporting that system and working to make it as fair, accessible, and efficient as possible. This is a considerable task at any time, but even more so today, when we are faced with insecurity on a number of fronts.

You, of course, are aware of the global financial crisis that we are in. More recently we have seen the rise of fear over the possibility of another international threat, a pandemic in the form of the H1N1 flu virus. While neither of these is a justice issue as such, they both inevitably touch on a wide range of legal issues. More importantly, they can seriously undermine confidence in our institutions and our sense of order and security in general, which has implications for the government's priority of a safe, secure society for all Canadians.

These events serve as a reminder of a larger context of the world in which we live. I believe that with calm and consistent leadership, Canada will weather these and other storms to come with our values and our legal institutions intact, but it will require a realistic and serious commitment on our part.

The government is committed to acting responsibly.

The government has repeatedly emphasized its commitment to protecting Canadian families and communities across this country. The Department of Justice supports that commitment through its unique role as the government's legal adviser, which also includes its work in developing policy and, of course, drafting and reforming laws.

Mr. Chairman, over the last year, our government has continued to make progress toward the goal of promoting safer communities by tackling crime with all the resources at its command. In the year ahead, the Department of Justice will support these efforts as efficiently and effectively as possible, both on its own and in collaboration with other federal departments and agencies, but also with partners from the provinces and territories as well as non-governmental organizations. These are very important as well.

One recent example of these efforts took place just last week. The fourth annual National Victims of Crime Awareness Week brought together a wide range of people and organizations jointly working to ensure that victims of crime have a voice that is heard in this country and have greater access to services.

It's been two years now since our government appointed the first federal ombudsman for victims of crime. This ombudsman will continue to ensure that the needs and concerns of victims are met.

Victims of crime will continue to be a priority for this government and the Department of Justice throughout this year and beyond. The estimates include our commitment of $52 million over four years--starting April 1, 2007--for programs, services, and funding to help the federal government and provinces and territories respond to a variety of needs of victims of crime.

The progress we have seen in this area over the last few years is encouraging. I am proud of the role my department has played. The perspectives and stories of victims of crime provide invaluable insight and inspiration in our common effort to ensure that Canadian society remains safe and secure.

Another area in which the department is increasingly involved is the struggle against organized crime. This is a growing problem in Canada, one with wide-ranging effects on crime in general. It also has the potential to not only undermine public security and the rule of law but also to consume a vast amount of resources in the process, as is the case through prolonged investigations and mega-trials.

Although the burden of prosecution has largely passed from Justice to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, as reflected in the estimates, my department still plays a major role--of course, notably on the legislative front.

In February we introduced new legislation to provide the justice system with the tools we need to fight street gangs and other forms of organized crime. The bill includes provisions to address such serious crimes as gang murders, drive-by shootings, and peace officer assault, as well as gang peace bonds. That bill, Bill C-14, passed third reading on April 24. It was introduced into the Senate on April 28. I understand that yesterday a Liberal senator spoke on this issue, and it has already been introduced by my colleague Senator Wallace.

I want to use this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Chair, and all the members of this committee for your diligent and expeditious examination of this piece of legislation. It's definitely a step in the right direction.

Around the same time, we also reintroduced a bill targeting serious drug crime in support of the national anti-drug strategy. The illegal drug trade is well known as a major source of income and influence for organized crime.

As I explained at the time, this bill was intended as a proportionate and measured response aimed at disrupting criminal enterprise by providing mandatory minimum prison terms for drug producers and dealers who threaten the safety of our communities and indeed threaten our way of life.

In particular, it provided for mandatory jail times for the importing and exporting of illegal drugs, and special penalties for offences carried out for organized crime or involving young people. The people who bring in illegal drugs to this country are a part of organized crime. I've heard that over and over again.

One cannot dispute that putting in prison a member of an organized crime group, particularly someone who is in a leadership role in the organization, disrupts or weakens the enterprise. I don't see how anybody can dispute that. A weakened organization cannot as effectively conduct their illegal business. I hope there will be agreement from everyone on that point.

More recently, just over two weeks ago, we introduced legislation to crack down on tackling property crime in general, particularly on the serious crime of auto theft. This has been identified as a primary activity for organized crime. I'm very pleased that Bill C-26 is expected to pass second reading today, and that too, of course, will be referred to this committee. I hope that you will deal with that piece of legislation in an expeditious manner as well, Mr. Chairman.

The bill is well supported, I have to tell you, particularly by, among others, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, which estimates that auto theft costs more than $1 billion a year, taking into account court costs and other legal expenses, as well as health care, policing, and so on. Once again, this legislation is built on the principle that the best way to fight gangs and organized crime is to disrupt the criminal enterprises they depend on.

I met recently with representatives of the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association. One dealer told me that one evening his padlocked fence was cut open, and a number of high-end vehicles, worth a total of more than $300,000, were stolen. When he notified the police the next day, they gave him the case number and told him to call his insurance company, as there was no way they would be able to locate and recover these vehicles. The vehicles would have been either shipped out of the country by then or dismantled or chopped up to be sold as parts.

As well as creating the separate offence of auto theft, the bill would provide for the application of customs powers to allow the Canada Border Services Agency to identify and prevent stolen property from leaving the country. This is a huge change, one that has to be made to give our border guards the ability to intercept this kind of activity.

Organized crime represents a serious problem, and no part of our society is immune to its effects. It's not going to be disappearing any time soon, but this government remains committed to addressing the impact of gangs and organized crime on families and communities.

We remain, of course, committed to a balanced approach to justice. Through legislative means, we are amending and updating the Criminal Code to ensure that this country has effective and proportionate sentences while also investing a significant amount in prevention strategies and programs.

Under the national anti-drug strategy, we have provided funds to the St. Mary's Counselling Service's High on Life Challenge program in Kitchener, Ontario.That's an example. We've given $400,000 to the Lethbridge, Alberta, school district for their Teaming up for Addiction Free Youth--the Watson project. We have supported B.C.'s Ooknakane Friendship Centre's youth health and wellness project; in Brandon, Manitoba, the Community Alcohol and Drug Education Coalition drug prevention mobilization plan; the La Ronge, Saskatchewan, Pre-Cam Community School drug awareness and prevention project; and in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, the YMCA Building Assets in Youth program. We've added $1 million to the support, treatment, education, and prevention program right here in Ottawa; and $327,000 to the Vermillion River region. Mr. Chair, these are the kinds of things we have to be investing in. We are giving $10 million for two new treatment initiatives in Vancouver.

I could go on with the list of prevention dollars spent by this government under the national anti-drug program prevention strategy, Mr. Chair. This is what we have to do to make sure there is a balanced approach--we recognize that--to assist individuals, particularly young people at risk.

In conclusion, I would like to mention that the Department of Justice as a central agency supports almost all the work of the government in some capacity, so the scope of its activities is considerable. The department is constantly interacting with the justice system and its many players, including the judiciary, other levels of government, professional associations, and a wide range of non-governmental organizations, from the community level to the national stage.

A good example of this work is the series of funding announcements under the justice partnership and innovation program announced April 7. The program, administered by the Department of Justice, supports activities that respond to the changing conditions affecting Canadian justice policy. These include the National Anti-Racism Council of Canada, the Law Courts Education Society of B.C., and the Canadian Criminal Justice Association's Canadian Congress on Criminal Justice.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express to you and all the members of this Committee, my deep appreciation for the important work you are doing.

The Department of Justice is instrumental in the government's work of responding to the needs of Canadians. As you know, we will continue to bring forward that balanced approach that's necessary on all these issues, because this is what this country deserves.

Thank you.

[Dr. Matt Logan]

Yes, I'd like to comment. I really am in support of the organized crime Bill C-14. I understand it just went through third reading. The penalties for assault causing bodily harm of 10 years and for aggravated assault of 14 years are a way of protecting our criminal justice family.

I think we have to really recognize the number of assaults that are being mounted against our criminal justice partners--or justice system participants, as the bill says--and journalists are part of that as well. I think raising those sentences, as well as requiring recognizance for two years for any intimidation of criminal justice partners or participants, is very positive. Certainly the three new offences with firearms, with the automatic degree that comes with Bill C-14, are all very important for protecting people in the criminal justice system.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Another portion of Bill C-14 would create new offences of aggravated assault of a peace officer and assault with a weapon of a peace officer. These would be punishable by maximum penalties of 14 and 10 years, respectively.

Would any of you care to comment on those?

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thanks to all of you for coming here today.

In my little riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, there was a recent incident in which someone went in and shot bullets in a seniors' home in the Gibsons area. Mounties went in and subdued the shooter in a very professional manner, and there were no casualties. That wasn't reported, but it is one of thousands of incidents that happen every day. We may be clueless, but we're not without great law enforcement officers. Thank you for what you do and for being here today.

I guess the closest I came to hearing something about bills that are before the House was from you, Inspector Stewart. I tried to catch all of your words when you were saying that people who are in a heightened state of criminal violence need to be arrested, held, and charged--and I think you said detained--in order to deter them.

I would appreciate it if you could comment on these bills we have before the House, Bills C-14 and C-15, which both depend on mandatory minimum sentences. We heard earlier today from a criminologist who felt that drug-related offences weren't best responded to by mandatory minimums, that they were more a health issue. Other speakers said that what you do with drugs should be your own personal problem. Can you comment on the public safety benefits that we might attain through bringing in mandatory minimum sentences to deal with the drive-by reckless shootings and drug-related activity?

[Professor Neil Boyd, Professor of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual]

Good morning.

Let me begin by saying that gangs and organized crime have been with us for at least 150 years—alienated and disfranchised young men finding a common bond of lawlessness, using crime as a lever for the creation of material wealth. Recall Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York, a reasonably accurate depiction of gang violence in New York City in the late 1860s, and then fast-forward to the streets of Vancouver, where, some 140 years later, there was almost a shooting a day until about three weeks ago.

The late 1960s and early 1970s provided new opportunities for those involved in gangs and organized criminal activity. The drugs of the third world arrived on the doorstep of the first world. The new availability of global travel had brought North Americans into contact with cannabis and hashish in such places as India, Lebanon, and Thailand, cocaine in Colombia and Bolivia, and opium and heroin in Southeast Asia. Some intrepid travellers and entrepreneurs brought these third world drugs into North America and western Europe. Although marijuana, cocaine, and heroin have been illegal since the earlier 20th century, there was little traffic in Canada or the United States until the late 1960s and early 1970s—in fact, about 1,000 convictions per year annually from the 1920s until 1967 for all illegal drugs combined. By 1976 we had 40,000 criminal convictions annually, and these were just for simple possession of cannabis. Something quite dramatic occurred.

For the last 40 years, we have continued to use criminal prohibition as our primary response to distribution and possession of these drugs. Unfortunately, prohibition hands the responsibility for product quality and price over to organized crime, providing these people with lucrative and guaranteed profitability. It is entirely fair to say, given this backdrop, that our policies served to line the pockets of often thuggish drug dealers. It must also be said, however, that each legal or illegal drug is different, carrying its own risks and potential harms. The greatest irony of our current reality is that individuals are now being shot to death over the trade in cannabis but that it is almost impossible to die from consumption of the drug itself.

Ironically, we attach moral condemnation to the consumption and distribution of cannabis, but not to tobacco, a drug with a greater addictive potential, more negative health consequences, and unparalleled morbidity. There is a very real sense, then, in which we go through our lives with cultural blinders, unable to see the arguably bizarre social construction that previous generations have created for us. A good part of a more effective response to organized criminals would be to remove financially rewarding forms of commerce from their control, and cannabis would be a good place to begin if there were any political will to do so. I also recognize that this is a global problem that can really only be solved in a global context.

I might add that the fight against organized crime cannot simply be won by changing our approach to drugs that are currently illegal. There are some drugs—crack and crystal meth—that are difficult to see as commodities that are capable of any form of sensible regulation. And there remain many other potentially viable means of commerce for gangs and organized crime. Identity theft, fraud, human trafficking, and cyber crime are some of the more contemporary prominent possibilities. But definitely, we have to recognize that while the regulation of some currently illegal drugs might put a huge dent into the businesses that organized criminals conduct, that alone cannot solve the problems we face.

Now, this takes us to the present and the federal government's response to the violence of organized criminals, particularly the recent spate of killings in the city of Vancouver, most notably a new category of first degree murder for any killing by a gang member. But put yourself in the position of a gang member on the streets of Vancouver. He's already carrying a handgun and willing to use it on his adversaries. He's already willing to kill and to risk being killed. He's not at all involved in any consideration of the severe penalties for his crime already set out in the Criminal Code.

Bill C-14 will also provide much grist for lawyers and the legal profession. When is an individual properly classified in law as committing a killing in pursuit of a criminal association? What kind of foresight is required for conviction for such a first degree murder charge? These questions will almost certainly occupy the time of crown counsel, defence counsel, and the judiciary, and there is no evidence that this diminution of the role of criminal intent will provide us with greater social safety. This should be, after all, the goal of any action we take.

In this regard, I would urge not a focus on penalties but more efforts with long-term prevention, targeted resources for police involved in the investigation and disruption of organized crime, and as my colleague Robert Gordon will likely suggest, an integrated Lower Mainland police organization.

As the chair noted, what I'd really like to focus on this morning is not Bill C-14, but Bill C-15, an act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

I'll begin by making the observation that most individuals arrested and convicted of trafficking offences are not individuals who control the supply of these drugs. In fact, they are, for the most part, low-level user-dealers selling enough to maintain their own habits.

As I'm sure you are aware, two of your own Department of Justice studies take issue with mandatory minimum terms for drug crimes. The commentary prepared for this bill notes this from a 2005 study: “There is some indication that minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool: that is, they constrain judicial discretion without offering any increased crime prevention benefits.”

The other study, from 2002, noted that the lack of deterrent effect flows from the barring of judicial discretion. Prosecutors and police are then forced to exercise this discretion, often choosing not to charge people with offences that would lead automatically to a prison term. Additionally, juries may choose to acquit individuals who face an automatic prison term when it seems excessive and unjust.

So what is the case to be made for the mandatory minimum? As the legislative summary prepared for Bill C-15 notes, it is one of denouncing certain egregious kinds of conduct and holding people responsible for such conduct, irrespective of the effectiveness of such legislation. We do that for homicide offences, and it's an entirely appropriate action that we take in doing so. But what of an individual who grows a single marijuana plant or two and shares the efforts of his gardening with his adult friends and neighbours? Do we need to denounce his conduct by placing him in jail for a minimum term of six months? This is what is mandated by Bill C-15 under clause 3 and its revisions to subsection 7(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Put simply, the bill does not make a distinction between the cultivation of marijuana and some of the egregious kinds of conduct that some marijuana growers engage in. The bill speaks to these egregious kinds of conduct: the creation of a public safety hazard, the theft of electricity, the exposure of children to toxic residues, the presence of firearms in a grow operation, and the setting of potentially lethal traps in and around the grow operation. While it does make sense to denounce these kinds of conduct, it is grossly disproportionate to denounce all forms of marijuana cultivation with minimum terms of imprisonment. The same points can of course be made with respect to the distribution of cannabis.

I'd also like to comment on Justice Minister Nicholson's recent statement regarding cannabis: “Marijuana is the currency that is used to bring other more serious drugs into the country.” Agreed, we should be concerned about those Canadians who export marijuana to the United States in exchange for cocaine, heroin, or handguns, but what of the tens of thousands of Canadians who grow the drug for themselves or other Canadians? Are they deserving of mandatory imprisonment for six months, particularly when their drug of choice has relatively insignificant health consequences in contrast to the much more lethal and actively promoted legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco?

Finally, let's consider the cost of mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment under Bill C-15. I will focus on marijuana cultivation, thus addressing only a small portion of the taxpayer dollars that will be required to fund passage of this new law, but we have very good data on this point.

An RCMP study in 2005 canvassed all found cases of marijuana cultivation in British Columbia from 1997 to 2003 and noted that there were 14,483 such cases in the province in that seven-year period, with a little over 500 individuals going to jail for an average of five months. The new legislation would urge at least six months in jail for an additional 14,000 British Columbians or, put differently, a further 2,000 British Columbians annually. The cost of this imprisonment would be approximately $57,000 per year for each provincial prisoner, a total of $114 million annually for marijuana cultivators in British Columbia alone.

In sum, Bill C-15 is poorly conceived legislation that is likely to cost a province like B.C. hundreds of millions of dollars annually in new jail cells. I'm not even actually calculating the cost of capital construction, but these jails will be built simply to house marijuana growers, among many others.

I can only hope that the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc Québécois will stand up and, if not willing to simply defeat the bill, at least pursue amendments that might stand the test of common sense.

Thank you.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the government has taken several steps such as implementing programs and introducing Bill C-14 to do his part in curbing gang violence in Canada. The government has always been committed to ensuring the safety and security of Canadians, and I trust that the opposition supported the passage of Bill C-14.

Federal public servants are continuing to work closely with their provincial and territorial counterparts to examine issues related to organized crime and gangs that arise or become pressing, develop strategies to prevent and deter organized crime and gangs, and identify areas that would benefit from legislative changes designed to make our criminal justice system as efficient as possible.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the adjournment debate on this important issue.

Recently, British Columbia has been hit by a wave of gang-related violence. Nearly every day, we hear about gang-related shootings that take innocent lives and make people afraid to go outside. Over the past few weeks, more than two dozen shootings, nine of them fatal, have taken place in the greater Vancouver area.

The Government of Canada recognizes that organized crime and gang-related activity still threaten safety on our streets and in our communities. The government is taking legislative measures to put an end to this.

The government has invested in crime-prevention activities targeting at-risk youth, activities that focus on gangs, guns and drugs. Young gang members commit many crimes; they are responsible for many more serious and violent crimes than young people who do not belong to gangs.

More specifically, the gangs, guns and drugs priority of the Department of Justice's youth justice fund has $2.5 million each year to carry out crime prevention programs across the country. Since 2006, 38 projects have been funded in a number of communities, including Toronto, Vancouver, Fort Qu'Appelle, St. John's and Montreal, that wish to reduce activities related to gangs and the recruitment of young people who, in the opinion of the justice system, are considered to be participants or are likely to participate in activities related to guns, gangs or drugs.

There is also the youth gang prevention fund, which is managed by the national crime prevention centre. This fund has a budget of $11.1 million and implements community intervention initiatives for youth who are in gangs or at risk of joining gangs.

In terms of law enforcement, the government has also allocated $64 million, under the national anti-drug strategy, to help law enforcement agencies to combat drug trafficking, which is the main activity of organized crime.

Bill C-14, introduced on February 26, 2009, contains proposals that will provide solutions to a number of problems related to gang violence, including increasingly bold acts of armed violence committed by street gangs.

Bill C-14 addresses the problems of drive-by shootings and the discharge of firearms with intentional disregard for the life or safety of another person. This new offence carries a minimum mandatory sentence that can be increased if the offence was committed for the benefit of a criminal organization or with a prohibited or restricted firearm.

With this bill, all murders closely tied to organized crime will be first degree murders, even if they were not planned and deliberate. It will also strengthen provisions with respect to gangs keeping the peace so that it is easier for judges to impose conditions that they believe will help prevent an individual from committing an offence for the benefit of organized crime.

In closing, I wish to tell members that this bill represents a solid and measured response to the threats that firearms and gangs pose to Canadians.

Criminal Code

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 is another small bill. I will make a couple of comments on the history. We have had a number of pieces of legislation from the government, which are purported to be tough on crime. As the member noted, this is a situation where a crime has to have occurred before the effect of the bill comes into play. It involves mandatory minimum sentencing and conditions under which certain sentencing will occur.

Although Bill C-14 deals with the Criminal Code, in an aspect of dealing with organized crime, it is not a comprehensive solution. This is the problem I have with the bill.

I agree with the bill and I will support it, but I will not support the government's initiative in terms of saying that we have addressed the problems of organized crime.

As I understand it, there is significant argument about mandatory minimums being a deterrent. I very much doubt the people involved with guns, drugs and organized crime are worried about the Criminal Code or look at the penalties to determine whether they will get in or out of the business. It really is ludicrous when we think about it.

On top of that, some of the mandatory minimum sentences seem to be reflective of other issues, whether it is a prohibited weapon or not and that somehow affects it. I asked the justice critic for the Liberal Party whether it really mattered to anybody if a firearm were used in the commission in the crime. I do not care if it is prohibited or not.

Could the member elaborate on this? I agree with him fully that we need a comprehensive approach to deal with organized crime, and prevention must be part of that solution.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill at third reading.

Bill C-14 proposes to amend the Criminal Code in several important ways. It facilitates the prosecution of gang related and organized crime and it makes our communities safer by introducing several new initiatives.

Specifically, Bill C-14 makes murders connected with organized crime activity automatically first degree and presumptively planned and deliberate. It creates three new offences: one, intentionally discharging a firearm while being reckless about endangering the life or safety of another person; two, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm to a peace officer; and three, aggravated assault of a peace officer.

The bill also extends the maximum duration of a recognizance to two years for a person who has been previously convicted of an offence involving a criminal organization, or intimidating a justice system participant. The recognizance conditions have also been clarified, which is another positive attribute of the bill.

In simple terms, this bill is aimed at reducing gang related violence, reducing drive-by or public shootings, and protecting our justice system officials, notably our police officers who have to deal with gang activity on a daily basis.

The bill is timely. It is helpful. It is a measured and defensible response with aspects that all Canadians can and should support, but it is not sufficient nor will it alone address all of the aspects of violent crime and gang activity that we need to address.

I would like to place the bill in the context of my own riding. I live in and represent the riding of Vancouver Kingsway, a riding that straddles the east and west sides of Vancouver. All Canadians have seen the violence that has erupted in Vancouver and in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. In the last four months alone we have had over three dozen shootings and at least 15 deaths. We have had public shootings in our streets, at homes and in shopping centre parking lots. Two women have been shot; one was murdered in a car in front of her four-year-old son. This outburst of violence, of gunfire, of deaths, many of which are obviously gang related, deserves a swift and strong response from all parliamentarians. We New Democrats are prepared to support such a response.

Indeed, just six months ago, New Democrats campaigned on renewing and strengthening our federal crime program. New Democrats called then and we call now for: 2,500 more police officers across Canada to be added to our forces; improved witness protection programs; more resources for prosecution and enforcement; toughened proceeds of crime legislation; better coordination between RCMP, border services, provincial and municipal police forces; and better and more prevention programs to divert youth at risk. Just as important, indeed it is critical that there be an understanding of and commitment to the concept that crime does not just happen, that it is a product of the health, or not, of society at large. Crime is connected in many ways to poverty, to unemployment, to weakened family units, to inadequate social supports.

It is this last component that I believe sets the New Democrats apart from the other two national parties. New Democrats understand that only a balanced and multi-faceted approach to crime will pay dividends and actually work to reduce it. New Democrats believe we must be tough on crime, but we also believe that we must be equally tough on the causes of crime. Punishment, prisons and locking people up longer alone will not solve our problems.

Last week on April 16, I held a forum on crime, gangs and violence in my riding. I invited all of the community to attend. I specifically invited the administrators, teachers and students of all four high schools in Vancouver Kingsway: Windermere, Gladstone, Sir Charles Tupper and Eric Hamber secondary schools. I would like to thank the administrators and staff of these schools for their dedication to their students and the work they do day in and day out that actually helps build and improve those young people's lives.

I held the forum at Windermere High School. We screened a locally made film called Warrior Boyz, a wonderful film directed by Ms. Baljit Sangra and co-produced by the National Film Board. This film was shot in Surrey, British Columbia. It examined the real lives of youth in gangs, at risk and ex-gang members, youth 15 years old, 18 years old and adults. This was a dramatic, sensitive and nuanced look at the lure and realities of gangs to our youth.

After the film we had a vibrant and robust discussion. I listened to the views of the citizens of Vancouver Kingsway. I listened to the voice of teachers. I listened to the voice of parents, the voice of social workers, the voice of ex-gang members and the voice youth. What came out very strongly was that if we truly want to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour, we need to take a balanced, intelligent and caring approach.

We need to strengthen support for families, they said. We need better jobs so that parents can work less and spend more time with their children. We need stronger economic health across the board for all Canadians. We need universal, accessible, affordable, quality day care. We need youth programs and community centres. We need more money and support for our education system to provide programs for music, art, drama and athletic programs to keep our youth active and engaged. We need better access to universities, technical schools and apprenticeships to give our young people hope for the future. We need policies that nurture our youth and adults, not punish them solely.

An ex-gang member came to my forum spontaneously. This was a hardened criminal who had spent many years in prison, and he spoke eloquently. He now actually is reformed and speaks to thousands of youth every week in British Columbia. He spoke of the causes that led him into a life of crime and into gangs. He told us that his was a life of deprivation as a child. He was a victim of domestic abuse. The first hug he said he ever received was from a gang member in a federal penitentiary. His first sense of belonging happened in prison.

What is the message from all of this? The Conservative approach of only cracking down on crime while reducing social supports for our families, our youth, our teachers, our social workers, our workers themselves, is wrong. It will not work. It is not what people across this country or the people who came to my forum want.

What people do want, what they need and what they have a right to is to be safe and secure in our communities, safe and secure from crime, and safe and secure from economic deprivation. Our children have the right to play safely in our schoolyards and parks. Our seniors have the right to walk safely in our streets and in their homes. They also have the right to dignity and a life of economic security. Women have the right to be safe everywhere, at home, at work and in our streets. We all want a Canada that is peaceful and free of guns.

This week has been a strange week in Canadian politics. As the Conservatives claim to get tough on crime, as they say they are cracking down on crime, they are trying desperately to make it easier to own and transport guns in this country. They say they want to reduce crime, but they adopt policies that make families poorer, attack women, do nothing to build stronger social, educational and health supports in Canada.

I will give an example in my riding. The government in its budget, in its so-called economic action plan, refused to increase the funding for the only federal program that supports employment for at-risk youth, kids who left school, kids who are on the street, kids with substance abuse issues, kids in poverty.

This caused the closure of the Baristas program, a wonderful program, in co-operation with Starbucks and the Pacific Community Resources organization, that trains at-risk youth to work in Starbucks. It teaches them money handling skills, customer service skills and organizational skills. This program, which was delivered on Broadway in East Vancouver, shut down two weeks ago because of the government's inaction.

This example shows in stark terms the shortsightedness and fallacy of the Conservative get tough approach. These youth do not need a handout, they need a hand up. They need support.

The government cut this program and wants to jail youth, when there are other ways to make these people secure. Instead, these youth who need help learning how to survive are being turned away from positive directions in this regard and are left with very few alternatives.

The bottom line is healthy, economically secure and supported individuals and families do not turn to crime. While we will never eliminate crime entirely, we need to recognize the clear link between strong social supports and reduced deviant behaviour. New Democrats recognize this, but the government does not.

I am pleased to move the bill forward. As I said at the beginning, we should and do have no tolerance for gangs, guns and violence. We need to express our most serious opprobrium as national legislators. The bill does that.

New Democrats will continue to do our part to get tough on crime. We will also continue to bring the voice of intelligence, compassion and reason to address the causes of crime so all Canadians can move forward in safety and security.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants), be read the third time and passed.