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.

Justice

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this past Monday, in committee, Bloc Québécois members attempted to weaken Bill C-14against organized crime. The Bloc wanted to reduce the minimum sentence for drive-by shootings.

On Wednesday, Bloc members voted against the bill introduced by the member for Kildonan—St. Paul, which would punish criminals who traffic in children.

The Bloc's ideology is to defend criminals rather than victims.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain the objective of the government's approach?

Criminal Code

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants).

First of all, I am delighted to be part of a team like the Bloc Québécois, which includes members such as our colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, a former public safety minister in the Quebec government, who created the joint forces that gave rise to Opération printemps 2001 against the Hells Angels. Today in 2009, we are still seeing the results. These joint forces continue their hard work and continue to aggressively tackle organized crime, practically wiping out the Hells Angels.

Of course we are also very proud to have the hon. member for Hochelaga on our team. Since 1997, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, he has been proposing amendments to the Criminal Code specifically to attack organized crime and reverse the burden of proof when it comes to the proceeds of crime, so that the burden of proof does not always fall on the Crown in that regard.

At present, our colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He is a renowned law scholar and criminal lawyer who practised law before being elected to this House. These are all members who can add to this debate and the other parties would do well to listen to the recommendations made by the Bloc Québécois.

Understandably, our party does not oppose Bill C-14. When criminal groups like street gangs disturb honest citizens and put their lives in danger, we must take action. We can improve legislation, strengthen the actions of police forces, provide them with tools that are more effective and better suited to new criminal realities, and most importantly, invest in crime prevention. We must take targeted action that produces real results. Yet the Conservatives seem to prefer only one approach, that is, suppression through punitive measures.

When it comes to justice, the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that the most effective approach is always prevention. We have to attack crime at its roots. It is better to attack the causes of crime and violence than to wait until something gets broken and then try to fix it. That is the wisest approach, not to mention the most advantageous one, both socially and financially. Could it possibly be any clearer than that? We have to begin by attacking poverty, inequality and exclusion, all of which are fertile ground for frustration and its scions, violence and crime.

People need to live in safe places, to be sheltered from extreme poverty, and to have access to an affordable education system. On all counts, the Quebec nation has made choices that set it apart from the rest. Its tuition fees are among the lowest in North America, its daycare network is exemplary, and its social safety net is designed to prevent families from slipping into poverty. The Bloc Québécois recognizes that gangs do commit serious criminal offences, acts for which they must be held accountable in court.

The government's duty is to intervene and use the tools that are available to enable Quebeckers and Canadians to live peacefully and safely. However, its measures must have a truly positive impact on crime. They have to give us more than rhetoric and fear campaigns. We need something better than an imitation of the U.S. system, whose results are dubious, at best. That is why the Bloc Québécois has devoted so much energy to its consideration of Bill C-14. During the committee's work on this bill, the members for Hochelaga and Abitibi—Témiscamingue listened to witnesses, asked the right questions, shared information and checked facts. In the end, the committee's study confirmed our initial position. We support the bill's goal to get tougher on street gangs.

That is why, for so many years now, the Bloc Québécois has been proposing measures to get tougher on criminal organizations, including street gangs, that threaten the safety of honest citizens. Getting rid of the two-for-one credit, among other things, is one Bloc Québécois proposal that the government has chosen to turn into a bill. That idea finally found an ear in the governing party, as has the concept of an anti-gang law, another Bloc Québécois proposal that has been around since the mid-1990s thanks to the member for Hochelaga, as I mentioned earlier.

That does not mean that the bill is perfect. In committee, we proposed an amendment that would have removed the minimum penalties, as they are not in keeping with Quebec's model of justice based on rehabilitation and reintegration. With regard to minimum penalties, members have to understand that we have a justice system in place that is based on judges, who are competent people. It is hard to watch the Conservatives, who probably would have liked to change the judges. They have tried to and have made appointments.

Quebeckers, with the way they have always looked at justice, clearly have an effective justice system and competent judges. Every case is unique, and we leave it up to the judges to set sentences. That is how Quebec understands the fight against crime and how Quebeckers have administered justice day after day, year after year and even century after century. Why try to replace judges with minimum penalties now? That is where the problem lies. The Bloc Québécois will always be opposed to a justice system that does not provide an opportunity for all parties to be heard and does not simply let the punishment fit the crime.

However, we are aware that some provisions of Bill C-14 are derived from existing offences. For example, clause 8 of the bill, which we hoped to amend, uses almost the exact wording of section 244 of the Criminal Code, which already provides for minimum penalties and which we tried to amend in 2007. These are not new provisions, but variations on existing offences.

Even though its amendment was rejected, the Bloc Québécois will not oppose Bill C-14. This bill has a generally noble objective, which is to reduce street gang crime. We share that objective. We cannot allow street gangs to do as they please and threaten the safety of honest people. To achieve that objective, the bill essentially proposes to use harsher penalties for existing offences and even minimum penalties in some cases.

The Bloc Québécois is disappointed that, to achieve such an important objective, the Conservatives are ignoring a series of measures that we find to be much more promising than mandatory minimum sentences. The Bloc Québécois also formulated a number of proposals of interest that the government should include. In short, even though our objective is the same, we do not agree with the Conservatives on the approach.

This does not mean that we are rejecting outright any proposal from the other parties. On the contrary. We are not like the Conservatives. The Bloc Québécois is very rigorous and will analyze the bill's provisions in committee to ascertain how effective it will be in achieving such an important objective. Even though the amendments we suggested were not retained, we will support the bill as long as the committee does its job.

It is worthwhile repeating what we suggested. First, we must combat the root causes of crime. We owe it to Quebeckers to take the fight against crime seriously, not to play petty politics with fundamental rights and, above all, to give them a true picture of the situation. Our party has taken this serious approach on a number of occasions, particularly in its steadfast commitment to ensuring the use of appropriate and effective measures to assess the pertinence of each bill. We have also been very serious in our ongoing concern for crime prevention, which should be at the top of the list of initiatives.

Tackling the causes of crime and violence, rather than waiting for things to break down and then trying to fix them, is the wisest, and more importantly, the most profitable approach, in both social and economic terms. We want this to be very clear. First, we have to tackle poverty, inequality and exclusion, all of which provide fertile ground for frustration and its manifestations: violence and crime. Recent events in Montreal—where the socio-demographic picture indicates that a large portion of the population is struggling economically—clearly demonstrate that the most promising approach is to try to give these people what they need to improve their living conditions. The Bloc Québécois has made some progress in that regard.

We have not been lenient when it comes to criminals and our actions prove it. Given that the activities of organized crime groups continue to increase year after year, thereby compromising public safety, the Bloc Québécois promised as far back as 1997 to insist that the federal government pass concrete measures to step up the fight against organized crime.

On September 24, 1998, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to combat money laundering and proposed that the $1,000 bill be taken out of circulation. That was a Bloc initiative. Although that bill died on the order paper, the Bloc did not back down. The government eventually followed through on the Bloc`s request and took the $1,000 bill out of circulation.

During the 2000 election campaign, the Bloc pushed hard to get Ottawa to finally pass anti-gang legislation, so we could lock up the outlaw motorcycle gangs that were running rampant in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois is proud to have been the first party in Ottawa to bring forward the idea of anti-gang legislation and to have made it our priority until it was finally passed by Parliament. The convictions that resulted from the Hells Angels megatrials in 2004 have shown just how valuable this legislation is.

The Bloc Québécois is also proud of its success in convincing the other federal parties to reverse the onus of proof for members of criminal organizations. This is what I was explaining earlier. Now, criminals have to prove that money and assets confiscated from them by law enforcement authorities did not come from criminal activity and that they are not living off the proceeds of crime.

Today, these laws continue to provide enforcement authorities with a set of legislative and regulatory tools they can use to more effectively prosecute organizations or associations that have the hallmarks of organized crime. We saw this recently in Quebec, with Operation Printemps 2009, where police seized criminal assets. Now, the criminals will have to prove that those assets were purchased with money that was not proceeds of crime. Once again, reverse onus, which was proposed by the Bloc Québécois and passed by the House of Commons, provides police with effective tools.

Let us look now at what we are proposing, On June 15, 2007, the Bloc recommended a series of major changes to Canada's justice system. I will list the four proposed measures.

First, we are asking that the Criminal Code be amended so that when violent acts involving firearms or knives are committed, membership in a street gang is considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes.

Second, we are calling for the creation of a fund that Quebec and the provinces could use to train crown prosecutors specifically for street gang trials. These proposals come out of the experience of the Government of Quebec, which created the organized crime prosecution bureau in 2001, with teams of prosecutors who specialize in organized crime. By training specialized prosecutors, Quebec has convicted 286 people of gangsterism offences. The bureau will be put to good use after Operation Printemps 2009. This group of specialized crown prosecutors will enable Quebec to tackle organized crime.

Third, since global positioning system (GPS) technology helps police prove and connect movements by gang members, the Bloc Québécois proposes to extend warrants for investigations using GPS surveillance to one year, so that they are valid for as long as electronic surveillance warrants.

Fourth, copies of all court rulings on street gangs and organized crime should be compiled and kept.

I invite all the other parties to listen to the Bloc Québécois recommendations, which were very relevant in the past.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's comments.

We both sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He is quite right. We have heard a number of witnesses speak about Bill C-14. These witnesses reminded us of the importance of taking action, especially given the current situation in several major cities, where there has been an increase in organized crime attacks using rifles. For example, the tragedies that have been unfolding in Vancouver over the past few months have really captured the public's attention and public concern is growing steadily.

I do not intend to speak for a long time. I had the opportunity to speak at second reading of this bill. As there were no amendments in committee, this bill has remained unchanged since second reading in this Parliament. You might remember the excellent speech that I gave on this bill. Since nothing has changed, I intend to be brief on this Friday morning.

The one thing that is important to underline with respect to Bill C-14 is the cooperation that all parties showed in passing this important legislation. When the legislation was introduced, the Minister of Justice said that the opposition parties would obstruct and delay the bill and that the government was very much concerned that it will become very complicated to get it through the House of Commons.

However, we saw the exact opposite in this place. When an issue of public security, as important as the fight against organized crime, is on the floor of the House of Commons, all parties showed a great deal of willingness to pass the legislation. The legislation, in our view, was a responsible and balanced measure to deal with the very difficult circumstance of gun violence in an organized crime context and the protection of peace officers and those in the judicial system.

I will remind the House that the legislation does four things. It would create sentencing provisions so that every murder committed in connection with a criminal organization is considered first degree murder regardless of whether there was premeditation. It would create a drive-by shooting offence, the discharge of a firearm with recklessness, and would impose a four-year mandatory prison sentence on someone convicted under that offence. It would create a mandatory minimum sentence with respect to assaulting a peace officer, an aggravated assault or an assault with a weapon of a peace officer or those who work in the judicial system. It also would extend the duration of recognizance for up to two years for a person who has previously been convicted of a gang related offence.

Those are four important measures. In our view, the legislation seeks to reassure the public and to send a clear message that Parliament will be very diligent with respect to the fight against organized crime.

However, what the legislation does not do is deal with the difficult problem of prevention, of giving the police the tools they need to pursue the gang members and those who are involved in organized crime. The government likes to focus on the sentencing provisions. Every time government members have a chance, they talk about how they have toughened up sentences, increased penalties and imposed mandatory minimums.

We do not disagree that that is part of the solution. As long as they are balanced and appropriate, they can be part of a comprehensive approach to deal with the very difficult problem of organized crime. However, it is not the final answer to that difficult problem when police are telling us that they desperately need to modernize the investigative techniques at their disposal and that they need lawful access legislation that allows them, in a 21st century way, with, obviously, the provision of a court order, to have electronic surveillance on communications by different gang members.

In the old days, when the police could get a wiretap order from a judge and listen to someone's home telephone attached to the wall in the kitchen, those days are over. The communication capacities of these organized criminal gangs are such that the investigative techniques that the police officers require to investigate and then prosecute these criminals need modernization.

One of the challenges in prosecuting an organized crime member, particularly with respect to a very violent crime or a murder, is often the reluctance of witnesses to come forward. There can be a terrible situation where people in broad daylight in a residential area or in a shopping centre will witness either a violent crime or a shooting and then when the police do an investigation and try to have witnesses give statements and ultimately testify once charges are laid, it becomes very difficult to get these people to testify because of the fear of reprisals.

Therefore, part of an investigation requires the ability to access electronic surveillance and exchanges of emails on blackberries or direct transmissions from one blackberry device to another. Our laws have not kept up with those communication instruments.

When the Attorney General of British Columbia came to Ottawa some months ago, one of the things he asked Parliament to move quickly on was modernizing investigative techniques and lawful access. He also asked Parliament to deal with the problem of the two for one remand credit. I am very happy that Bill C-25 was introduced, which the Liberal Party will be supporting as well, once again to limit the extra credit given for remand time while awaiting a trial.

In our view, this legislation represents part of the solution. However, the government needs to spend more time focusing on what it can do to prevent crime and not simply punish somebody who is convicted once there is already a victim. The tragedy with crimes committed in accordance with Bill C-14 is that hey will be among the most violent and dangerous crimes because they are associated with criminal gangs. Once a charge is laid under these new provisions, a tragedy, without doubt, has taken place.

We will see victims of these organized criminal gangs on television and in our communities. At that point, it is important for those convicted of these crimes to face stiff penalties. However, we think it is equally important to ask those communities what tools, what law enforcement agencies, what social programs, what educational institutions and what addiction programs they need from us to prevent people being victims, which, ultimately, will make communities much safer.

As I mentioned, the Liberal Party supported this bill.

We plan on continuing to work with the other political parties in this Parliament when balanced and responsible measures to improve public safety throughout the country are introduced. But we will also insist at all times that there be a balance between imposing harsh penalties for the most serious criminal offences and providing provincial and municipal authorities and police forces with the tools they need to prevent crime.

We must help them to take action before citizens become victims or unfortunate situations arise such as those we have seen in major Canadian cities in recent months.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interest in Bill C-14 whose purpose is to protect the public.

The citizens of his riding will be pleased, since they too want to feel safe. We are here to work together to ensure the safety of all our citizens. Many people say that mandatory minimum sentences will leave judges with very little flexibility; however, we must bear in mind that they are meant to send a clear message to criminals, specifically, that we are serious and we condemn certain actions, such as drive-by shootings and intentional discharge of a firearm.

We have seen some complacency in the past. We, however, intend to show that we are taking serious action against organized crime. When people involved in organized crime see that Parliament is beginning to give in, it grows stronger. When they see that Parliament and parliamentarians will not give in, that we are taking a stand, they are the ones who will give in, and that is our goal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in today’s third reading debate on C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants). I am pleased to note that the bill was adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights without amendment.

The Government of Canada recognizes that organized crime, including gang activity, continues to pose a threat to the safety of our streets and communities, and Bill C-14 is part of our strategy to address this problem. This bill proposes amendments to strengthen the Criminal Code’s responses to organized crime. Most notably, it is taking direct aim at the increasing use of violence committed by organized crime. With these amendments, we are demonstrating our commitment to improving the safety and security of communities across Canada.

I am pleased to note that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met March 30, April 1 and April 20, 2009 and heard from the Minister of Justice, officials from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics and a range of stakeholders, including representatives of law enforcement, prosecutors and the Canadian Council of Defence Lawyers.

Bill C-14 proposes amendments in four broad areas.

First, it makes all murders connected to criminal organizations automatically first-degree murder, regardless of whether they were planned and deliberate.

Second, it creates a new offence to target reckless shootings involving the intentional disregard for the life or safety of another person.

Third, it creates new offences to respond to assaults against peace officers which cause bodily harm or involve the use of a weapon and the aggravated assault of a peace officer.

Fourth, it amends the gang recognizance provision to clarify that a judge can impose any reasonable conditions and to lengthen the period of the order to 24 months where an offender has been previously convicted of a criminal organization offence, terrorist offence or intimidation of justice system participant offence.

The bill received very strong support from almost all witnesses appearing before the committee. The proposed amendments to make all murders committed in close connection with organized crime automatically first degree, regardless of whether the murder was planned and deliberate, was well received. As you know, those convicted of murder receive a life sentence, but those convicted of first-degree murder are ineligible for parole for 25 years. In the case of second-degree murder, it is 10 years.

The committee heard evidence from officials from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics confirming that gang-related homicides are on the rise in Canada. In 2007, there were 594 homicides in Canada and 117 were gang-related. The committee also heard evidence from a prosecutor from Quebec that this amendment would be useful in securing first-degree murder convictions in gang homicides, regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate.

As to the second key element of Bill C-14, the creation of a new offence to address drive-by and other reckless shootings, this would be accomplished by prohibiting the intentional discharge of a firearm when in so doing the shooter turned their mind to the fact that doing so could put the life or safety of another person at risk.

There have been claims during committee debates that this offence is redundant and already covered by section 244 of the Criminal Code. This proposed offence is different from the existing and equally serious firearm offence, section 244, because it does not require proof that the shooter specifically intended to cause bodily harm to a person, something which I understand can be difficult to prove in certain cases.

The proposed offence is punishable by mandatory minimum penalties, which increase when the offence is committed for a criminal organization or if it involved a prohibited or restricted firearm.

The proposed mandatory minimum penalties did have the support of the prosecutors and law enforcement representatives, who saw the penalties, including the mandatory minimum penalties, as significant and important tools for prosecutors and law enforcement in the fight against organized crime.

However, the issue of the proposed mandatory minimum penalties was not universally supported. The Canadian Council of Defence Lawyers had concerns with the use of mandatory minimum penalties. As well, the proposed mandatory minimum penalties was the object of a motion to amend by the Bloc Quebecois that would have deleted the mandatory minimum penalties and left only the maximum penalty of fourteen years imprisonment. This motion did not carry.

I would like to take a moment to explain Bill C-14's proposal to have a mandatory minimum penalty for this offence. First of all, the penalty scheme of the proposed drive-by shooting offence is consistent with the overall penalty scheme of the Criminal Code. There are already a number of offences involving the use of firearms where mandatory minimum penalties apply, such as attempted murder and assault with a weapon.

Second, section 244, the existing offence of “discharging a firearm”, already carries a mandatory minimum penalty of four years, and the proposed offence is modelled on section 244. It would have created an inconsistency in the Criminal Code to have no mandatory minimum penalty in the new offence to address drive-by shootings but still have one in the existing section 244.

There should be no mistake about the government’s position, as reflected in Bill C-14: we need to take steps to address the lethal combination of guns and gangs. As an aside, I would also like to mention that the officials from Statistics Canada indicated that nearly 69% of gang-related homicides were committed with a firearm. In contrast, only 20% of non gang-related homicides involved firearms.

The third key element of this bill is aimed at providing increased protection for peace officers and responding to violence committed against other justice system participants. It does this by creating new offences to prohibit assaults against peace officers which cause bodily harm and aggravated assaults against peace officers. These offences are punishable, on indictment, by a maximum period of imprisonment of 10 and 14 years respectively.

These amendments were also supported by prosecution and law enforcement officials and viewed as necessary and useful. In addition, this bill would require a court to give primary consideration to the principles of denunciation and deterrence when sentencing an offender for any of the offences involving assaults against peace officers, as well as cases involving the intimidation of justice system participants, such as judges, prosecutors or jurors. This sends the right message and demonstrates the seriousness with which Parliament treats such acts that undermine the rule of law and the criminal justice system generally.

The fourth area of reform in this bill relates to the gang peace bond provision, which are preventive court orders requiring an individual to agree to keep the peace and to abide by other specific conditions. These amendments would clarify that, when issuing a recognizance order or a promise to keep the peace, a judge can impose any conditions that he or she feels are necessary to secure the good conduct of the defendant. The amendments would also extend the maximum length of the order from 12 months to 24 months, if the defendant had been previously convicted of a criminal organization offence. These amendments also relate to those who are suspected will commit a terrorist offence or an intimidation of justice system participant offence.

These elements of Bill C-14 offer important tools because they seek to prevent the commission of organized crime offences before they take place. They can be an extremely useful tool for police in controlling gang activity, and these amendments will ensure that the orders are used as they were intended.

Police in Ontario use these provisions as part of their gang strategy to control the “small fry” in a gang. The prosecution witness that the committee heard from suggested that Quebec will start using this new provision in Bill C-14 as part of its own street gang strategy.

I am pleased that Bill C-14 has been thoroughly examined by the justice committee and that we are rapidly approaching our goal of seeing this legislation passed into law.

This government has made the safety and security of Canadians a priority. I am confident that Bill C-14 is a strong and urgently needed step in the right direction and I urge all honourable members to support its passage.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the debate today on an opposition motion. Tomorrow we will begin, and there is an understanding that we will conclude, debate on third reading stage of Bill C-14, the bill to address organized crime. Following Bill C-14, we will continue debate on the report stage amendments to Bill C-11, the human pathogens and toxins bill.

If time permits, we may begin debate on the second reading stage of Bill C-6 dealing with consumer product safety.

Next week, we have opposition days scheduled for Monday, April 27 and Tuesday, April 28. On Wednesday we will return to government legislation with the continuation of business from this week. We will also give consideration to any bills that are reported back from committee or sent to us from the Senate.

Pursuant to a special order and because of the Liberal convention, the House will not sit on Friday, May 1. Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is a long-standing tradition to give up a sitting day to allow a political party to attend a convention and we are very pleased to continue on with that tradition.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

This motion will not result in any delay of the government's agenda, because if it is passed, we will sit on Tuesdays whereas the committee does not normally meet on Tuesday.

Furthermore, it is not true that we can freely question all witnesses. We should draft a report. Perhaps we could do it in two meetings, if the government wishes to amend my motion. There is no greater threat, as we speak, than the Hells Angels and other similar groups. I could not comprehend the government saying that they are committed to fighting organized crime without wanting to think specifically of the ways of making these groups illegal.

You heard the same testimony as I heard, Mr. Chairman, and I do not believe we were meeting in camera when we were discussing Bill C-14. People told us that the biggest favour we could do them would be to work on having the Hells Angels declared illegal because currently, they have to start at square one with every trial. I must say I do not understand the parliamentary secretary's logic. We have been asked in many editorials to proceed in this fashion.

If Mr. Murphy wishes to move an amendment, I think it would be best to decide on specific dates because that would oblige us to work concretely. Perhaps we could hear from witnesses in a single meeting and draft the report over two meetings. I would be more comfortable if we had dates.

The parliamentary secretary will understand that the committee's agenda cannot be solely dictated by government bills. The committee may have other concerns, but in order not to slow down the study of bills, we are prepared to do this in two meetings. It would be on Tuesdays, so I do not understand.

If Mr. Murphy wishes to pass the amendment, it is possible to do it in only two meetings. We could withdraw the date of May 26 and keep the 5^th and 12^th of May. We could have that sort of amendment, but we cannot say that we will not study this issue or that we would include it in the general study on organized crime. This is urgent. As you know, there were 156 arrests in Quebec, including 111 Hells Angels. Many people have taken the position of inviting us to take the means to have them declared illegal, and that is the intention of the motion.

The Bloc Québécois

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc has betrayed Quebec. Despite everything that party says, we have reason to wonder whether it really wants to fight gun crime in Quebec.

On Monday, the Bloc made another attempt to weaken Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants), by suggesting that mandatory minimum sentences that could apply to drive-by shootings, among other things, be removed from the bill.

However, in a Bloc press release dated February 15, 2007, the member for Hochelaga said that the Criminal Code should be amended to give police forces the tools they need to fight street gangs. That is exactly what we are proposing with the mandatory minimum sentences in this bill.

While the Bloc spends its time telling Quebeckers anything it pleases, our government is putting honest citizens, justice and victims first in its governance bill.

Opposition Motion—Gun Control

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we have spoken on several occasions already this morning on not only the effects of the registry, or the non-effects of the registry, but also on the fact that we believe there needs to be stronger measures taken to combat crime in Canada.

I would ask the member, knowing that he is a long time member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, about an amendment that was brought forward in the justice committee. Yesterday, at the justice committee, the Bloc moved an amendment to take out the mandatory minimum penalties for drive-by shootings and other reckless shootings in Bill C-14, which the committee is examining. The NDP supported the Bloc amendment. Obviously, it goes without saying that had this amendment passed, it would have seriously weakened the intent of the bill, but with the support of the Liberals, that amendment was not approved.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague from the NDP, why did the NDP decide to support a Bloc amendment that would take out the mandatory minimum penalties for drive-by shootings?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I am rising in this House, on behalf of the Liberal caucus, to support the motion tabled today by the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. That member has a long and distinguished career in the area of public safety. He is one of those people here who really knows what must be done to improve public safety and, for example, to fight organized crime, as he did for so many years during his tenure at the Quebec National Assembly. Today, I salute him and I am telling him that the Liberal caucus will support his motion.

I also want to stress the important work done by many Canadians on the very complex issue of gun control. For example, Suzanne Laplante-Edwards, who is the mother of one of the victims of the tragedy at the École Polytechnique, has done a lot to promote gun control. She is in Ottawa today to remind parliamentarians of the importance of supporting measures that will help control guns and increase public safety, and also to remind us of past tragedies that show the importance of continuing to fight to improve all these measures, which are so critical to ensure public safety. Gun control and the gun registry are undoubtedly two initiatives that help us achieve these goals.

I want to be very clear. Liberals will be supporting this motion tabled by our colleague for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. We believe gun control and the firearms registry are essential elements in the effort to improve public safety across Canada. However, Liberals also recognize that there are persons across the country and in rural communities such as the ones I represent who legitimately use firearms, non-prohibited weapons, for sporting purposes, hunting and target practice.

We recognize and respect that some Canadians have a legitimate need for firearms, but they must also recognize that the legitimate need to protect public safety and to follow the advice of Canada's front-line police officers and police chiefs across the country requires that all firearms need to be part of an effective firearms registry that serves as an essential element of the police officers' work to protect public safety.

In a question a few moments ago, I think my colleague for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine reminded the House of a very important document that was sent to our leader by the Canadian Police Association, a group that represents 57,000 front-line police officers. The elected president of this association wrote to the leader of the Liberal Party on April 7 and asked the Liberal Party to continue to support the firearms registry. He asked members of our party and members of Parliament in other parties to oppose Bill S-5, currently sitting in the Senate, and to oppose Bill C-301, a very irresponsible private member's bill that sits on the order paper of the House.

I want to quote from the letter from the Canadian Police Association, where the elected president said:

It would be irresponsible to suspend or abandon any element of [Canada's firearms program]

In 2008, police services used the firearms registry, on average, 9,400 times a day. They consulted the firearms registry over 3.4 million times last year alone. In that year, 2008, they conducted an inquiry of the firearms registry on over 2 million individuals and did over 900,000 address checks at the firearms registry.

Another organization that in our view is eminently qualified, more so than government members of Parliament, to speak on the issue of public safety is the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. In a letter sent to our leader on March 9, they also said they were asking members of Parliament to oppose Bill C-301 and to maintain the registration of all firearms.

That is precisely the thrust of the motion tabled today in this House. It is important to maintain the integrity of the gun registry and to end the amnesty which, in our opinion, has watered down the integrity of the registry, something which certainly does not help public safety.

The government across the way claims to be interested in public safety. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you have often seen cabinet ministers and government members wanting to be photographed with police officers. These people make announcement on various bills, or on amendments to the Criminal Code. We often see police officers standing behind the minister announcing such changes to the Criminal Code.

It is obvious that Conservative members view the support of police officers as something symbolic, but also very important for their so-called improvements to the Criminal Code. However, when these same officers, through the duly elected officials representing their associations, ask them to put a stop to a policy which, in their opinion, is irresponsible and goes against the goal shared—I hope—by all members in this House, namely to improve public safety, government members do not agree with the people with whom they had their picture taken just weeks earlier.

There is no doubt, in our view, that extending the amnesty poses a threat to public safety. That is why we will oppose the idea of extending or renewing the amnesty.

If we think about the whole idea of an amnesty with respect to a Criminal Code provision, it is a rather bizarre way to make criminal law in the country. For a government to simply decide that it will suspend the application of a particular section of the Criminal Code or another criminal law is, to me, not a very courageous or legitimate way to make public law in Canada.

If the government had the courage to table a bill in this House that would do what so many government members in their speeches or in their questions and comments claim they want it to do, it knows very well that the bill would be defeated. What does the government do? It signs an order in council or a minister simply directs crown prosecutors that, for this or that reason, for a period of time they should not enforce the criminal legislation.

That is as irresponsible as deciding that the sections of the Criminal Code, for example, that apply to impaired driving would be suspended for two weeks around Christmas. It is the same sort of notion that the government can tell prosecutors or justice officials that we are going to provide an amnesty.

Earlier we heard members claiming that this was only so that firearms owners would come forward and voluntarily choose to register their firearms. If that were the original intention of the one year amnesty when it was announced almost three years ago, why was there a need to continually renew it? The reason the amnesty was renewed is because the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he does not support effective gun control in Canada and he wants to find a way to do what he cannot do legislatively in this House, which is to weaken the firearms registry that is so important for public safety.

The government's true agenda with respect to gun control and public safety is found in two measures. It is found in private member's Bill C-301. The government likes to say that it is a private member's bill but it is the first time I have seen the Prime Minister address a large gathering of persons in front of the media and urge members of Parliament to support a private member's bill, as the Prime Minister did in support of Bill C-301.

However, when the Prime Minister's office realized that it was an irresponsible and appalling piece of legislation, which, for example, as my colleagues have identified, would allow people to transport automatic weapons such as machine guns through neighbourhoods on their way to a target range, it then said that the government would not support the bill on the same day the Prime Minister publicly called upon members of Parliament to vote for it. However, as a way to sort of recoup the embarrassment, the government then presented in the other place Bill S-5.

It is pretty transparent why the government did that. It is because it does not have the courage to move legislation in this House of Commons that would weaken public safety and compromise the safety of police officers and Canadians by weakening gun control measures across the country.

The government likes to use this issue to try to drive a wedge between rural and urban Canada and has done so on many occasions.

I have been fortunate enough to be elected four times in a rural riding in New Brunswick. The largest town in my riding is probably Sackville, which has about 5,000 people. The rest of my riding consists of small towns or unincorporated areas that do not have a municipal government.

So I have been elected four times in a rural riding and I have visited hunting and fishing clubs there. Where I live, in the Grande-Digue area of New Brunswick, the local hunting and fishing club organizes a community lunch once a month on Sunday morning. I have gone to it many times.

It is not true that our position in favour of registering all firearms means we are against the legitimate use of hunting rifles in parts of the country where hunting is a common sport.

The Prime Minister tries to use this issue to divide people. I can assure the House that the Liberal Party fully respects the legitimate use of firearms, whether for sport or by people who simply collect guns. We also value the lives of the people who are responsible for ensuring the safety of Canadians all across the country, including in rural areas, and who want us to keep the firearms registry.

The idea that rural areas are safe from threats to public safety and tragedies involving guns is also not realistic. Just a few months ago in the town in Shediac, where I have my riding office, someone died as a result of a crime. Three people entered a house and killed a young man with a hunting rifle. Criminal charges were laid a few weeks ago and the case is now before the New Brunswick courts.

Public safety definitely matters to people in the town of Shediac, New Brunswick, on the banks of the Northumberland Strait, just as it interests people in such big Canadian cities as Vancouver, Toronto, Winnipeg or Montreal. We are all affected by measures to improve public safety, but it is in the interests of us all to preserve a balance between the legitimate use of firearms and the need to have a full and complete registry that is used more than 9,400 times a day by Canadian police officers who need to consult the registry for their own protection and to conduct criminal investigations.

The Liberals are interested and will always be interested in ways to improve the registration process for firearms. We acknowledge that over a number of years there have been some improvements but there can continue to be ways to make registration easier and simpler for those who legitimately have firearms that are not prohibited weapons for legitimate purposes.

To have an interest in seeing how we can improve the firearms registry for those who apply to have firearms registered is as legitimate as the desire to want to preserve the integrity of the firearms registry and not allow an amnesty, which is an irresponsible back door measure to do what the government does not have the courage to do legislatively, which is weaken the firearms registry across the country.

We spend a lot of time in the House talking about public safety and about ways improve criminal legislation. We have seen a number of examples where Liberals have worked with other parties in the House and the government to make amendments to the Criminal Code that will improve public safety.

Yesterday, the House passed Bill C-25 at second reading and it will now go before the justice committee. That was important because it would reduce the two for one remand credit which will improve public confidence in the justice system. We also supported Bills C-14 and C-15. Yesterday evening, I, along with my colleague who chairs the justice committee and committee members, passed Bill C-14 without amendment and it will be referred back to the House. That bill attacks some of the difficult problems of organized crime. It would the police increased ability to lay criminal charges to deal with some of the tragedies in some of the difficult situations that we have seen in places like Vancouver.

On this side of the House, the Liberals are very interested in working in ways that are responsible, balanced and recognize the importance of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms but we also recognize that the Criminal Code needs to be modernized and strengthened and to give police officers and prosecutors the tools they need to preserve and improve public safety.

One of those tools is a national system of gun control. Canadians across the country support the idea that there should be effective gun control measures in the country. Much to the chagrin of Conservative members, that includes, in the opinion of police officers and police chiefs, the registration of all firearms in Canada as an essential tool in the pursuit of improved public safety.

Our hon. colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was right to introduce this motion and we intend to support it.

We will be supporting this motion when it comes before the House for a vote because we will not play the games that the Conservative Party wants to play in pretending that this is a great divide between rural and urban Canada.

I stand before the House, as a member elected in a rural riding, as living proof that the people in my riding support effective gun control measures and understand that when the police officers across the country say to us that this is one of many tools they need to improve public safety, we should be careful before acting in an irresponsible way that would diminish and reduce something that I think we all share as a desire to have safer communities, safer homes and safer streets all across the country.

Justice and Human Rights

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In accordance with the order of reference of Thursday, March 26, your committee has considered Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants), and agreed on Monday, April 20, to report it without amendment.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Let us take a murder trial as an example. Assuming that Bill C-14 is passed, you will have to show that the crime was committed by order of the Hells Angels. You will have to show that the order came from the Hells Angels.

[Randall Richmond]

With the present legislation, without Bill C-14, there are two major difficulties. One is identifying the people involved, and that's what Mr. Bingley mentioned in his representations this morning. But even if you get past that obstacle, the second difficulty is establishing the specific intent, because the present legislation requires you not just prove that somebody drove past a building and fired shots in the direction of the building, you have to prove that there was a specific intent to wound people while those shots were being made. Under Bill C-14 what you are proposing is that it will no longer be necessary to prove what was in the mind of the person. If you can find the person who made the shots, you're pretty much home free then, because the state of mind that the prosecution will have to prove is that of recklessness, which is much easier to prove than specific intent to wound someone.

[Randall Richmond, Deputy Chief Prosecutor of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, Organized Crime Prosecutions Bureau, Department of Justice (Quebec)]

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, thank you for having invited me to testify before you in the context of your study of Bill C-14.

I share your deep concern with regard to the fight against organized crime and the search for new means of combatting it.

Allow me to begin by stating clearly that I support Bill C-14 without reservation and that I hope that it will be passed without delay. This bill, though not revolutionary, adds a certain number of tools to our tool box to fight organized crime.

Decreeing that a murder is murder in the first degree when committed in connection with a criminal organization remedies what I always considered to be an oversight in the 1997 anti-gang legislation otherwise known as Bill C-95. Parliament had at that time stated that murder was murder in the first degree when it was committed in association with a criminal organization and involved the use of explosives, thus excluding other homicides committed in association with a criminal organization.

The 1997 provision was useless and was never used for two reasons. Firstly, if a murder is committed with explosives it is clear that premeditation was involved. Secondly, shortly after the death of young Daniel Desrochers in 1995, organized crime in Quebec practically abandoned the use of explosives there and turned to firearms.

It is a good thing that Bill C-14 will apply the rule to all homicides committed in connection with a criminal organization, whatever means are used.

The new Criminal Code section 231, proposed subsection (6.1), as proposed by Bill C-14, will turn an unused section of the Criminal Code into one with a much greater likelihood of real applications. Although many gangland murders are obviously planned and premeditated, others are not. A typical example we have seen on many occasions is this: two or more criminal organizations are present in a city or in a geographical area; the territory is divided up between organizations, each one controlling the rackets on its turf. Bars, taverns, and nightclubs are typically divided up between criminal organizations, and on their own turf they have a monopoly on the drug sales, prostitution, and other criminal activities. Occasionally, someone associated with, or perceived to be associated with, a particular organization shows up in the bar or nightclub controlled by another criminal organization. He is not welcome and is told to leave. He refuses, an argument breaks out and turns into a fight, someone pulls out a knife or a gun, and someone gets killed. No one planned for this to happen, so there is no premeditation. The normal charge would be second-degree murder.

But with the amendment proposed by Bill C-14, we could envisage a conviction for first-degree murder. We had a case just like this in Montreal where a completely innocent person was killed by a gang of thugs in a bar. It was a case of mistaken identity, because the victim in reality had no association at all with the opposing criminal gang, but his murder was nonetheless gang-related and gang-motivated.

As for the new offence of recklessly discharging a firearm, as proposed by Bill C-14, it fills the void presently existing between disturbing the peace by discharging a firearm, which is a summary conviction offence and therefore punishable by only six months maximum, or careless use of a firearm punishable by no more than two years, and discharging a firearm with intent to wound or endanger life, punishable by 14 years and a five-year minimum when committed with a handgun.

In the case of drive-by shootings, it can be very difficult to prove the specific intent to wound or endanger life. This can be even harder to prove if no one is hit by the bullets, yet the conduct is much more dangerous than simply disturbing the peace or carelessly firing bullets into the air. Drive-by shootings can and do kill people, including innocent bystanders. So the new offence of recklessly discharging a firearm as proposed by Bill C-14 would allow us to go for more significant sentences up to 14 years and with important minimums when committed with handguns or for a criminal organization.

The two new offences of assault against peace officers don't appear at first view to change anything, because the maximum sentences are no higher than those for similar assaults against any person. However, when viewed in conjunction with the new proposed section 718.02, one can see the significance of these new offences. Proposed section 718.02 will call upon courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence when sentencing for these offences. This should lead courts to give stiffer sentences and consequently this should lead to greater respect for peace officers. I believe this change is needed, for we're continuously reminded that there's increasingly a lack of respect for police officers and consequently their capacity to keep the peace is impaired.

The new proposed section 718.02 will also call upon courts to give primary consideration to denunciation and deterrence when sentencing for intimidation of justice system participants in general. This too should lead to greater respect for all those working in the interests of justice.

The amendments proposed by Bill C-14 for preventive peace bonds under section 810.01 are good ideas, in my opinion, but I have to admit that in Quebec we have never used this section of the code. That is probably because in our efforts to fight organized crime, we have concentrated our energy on gathering enough evidence to lay criminal charges and get criminal convictions. However, I do know that the organized crime recognizance is used in Ontario as part of their guns and gangs strategy, particularly for what they call “small fry”; in Quebec we call that le menu “frettin”. In Quebec we hope to start using these provisions in the future as a part of our own strategy against street gangs.

The Quebec Bar Association has expressed its opposition to a couple of the suggested conditions in the new legislation. The new legislation proposes certain specific conditions for the preventive peace bonds, and the Quebec Bar Association has expressed its opposition to those conditions, particularly the one involving participation in a treatment program and also the wearing of an electronic monitoring device.

Some lawyers say these are drastic measures for someone who is not even charged with, let alone convicted of, an offence. However, I believe that since these measures are at the discretion of the provincial court judge, we can trust our judges to use their discretion wisely and impose these conditions only where there are reasonable grounds to believe they are necessary, which will probably be quite rare.

So I support Bill C-14; however, I would like to point out that many of the legislative changes found in Bill C-14, as well as in Bill C-15, are dependent upon a determination by the court of the existence of a criminal organization. If you really want to give us a boost in our fight against organized crime, I would ask you to stop for a moment and consider why Parliament continues to treat criminal organizations so differently from terrorist organizations.

As of 2001, Parliament simply decreed that dozens of organizations set out in a list were terrorist organizations. Prosecutors don't have to prove that they are terrorist organizations; they are declared to be terrorist organizations by the Governor in Council. Most of these groups have never been convicted of terrorism in Canada. In fact, most of these groups do not even exist in Canada, let alone carry on terrorist activities here.

On the other hand, ever since the adoption of the first anti-gang act in 1997, Parliament has required that prosecutors prove that an organization is criminal in each and every case, even if it is the same organization. Consequently, each time we charge someone in the Hells Angels on anti-gang charges, we have to start from scratch and prove that the Hells Angels motorcycle club is a criminal organization.

In the past 12 years, there have been dozens of convictions establishing that the Hells Angels motorcycle club is a criminal organization. In Quebec, there were even full-patch members who admitted that they belonged to a criminal organization. On at least three occasions, courts in Ontario have decided that the Hells Angels motorcycle club is a criminal organization across Canada. These were decisions by the superior court of Ontario.

Yet courts in British Columbia, Ontario, and Manitoba have also decided that because of the present state of our law, those findings apply only to the particular accused in those particular cases. As prosecutors, we haven't complained, and we have gone about our duty diligently and successfully, but this constant requirement that we prove the same thing over and over again is monopolizing valuable resources that could be used elsewhere in the fight against organized crime.

Proving that a group is criminal organization is usually one of the most time-consuming parts of an organized crime prosecution. It can take literally months to make this evidence before the court. I'll give you some examples.

On March 28, 2001, in Quebec, police carried out a massive round-up of Hells Angels, called Operation Springtime 2001. There were 119 members and associates charged by the organized crime prosecutions bureau, in which I work, in three different files. Project Rush alone--which was part of these people being arrested--united 42 accused in one file, of which 36 were arrested, and 35 were denied bail.

A new courthouse had to be built just to allow a trial this big to take place. However, the justices of the superior court decided to break up the co-accused into smaller, more manageable groups. One trial involved 14 accused, lasted eight months before a jury, and heard 73 witnesses before a guilty plea was worked out.

A second group of 17 co-accused began another trial, which lasted three months before one jury and then had to start all over again before a new judge and jury when the first judge quit. The new trial lasted 13 months before a jury, saw 1,383 exhibits filed, and heard 151 witnesses. Some of the accused threw in the towel along the way and pleaded guilty. In the end, the jury rendered verdicts on the nine remaining accused and declared them all guilty.

The third trial, in English, united two accused, took three and a half months before a justice of the superior court, sitting without a jury, and also resulted in convictions. But in that case, it only took three and a half months because they admitted that Hells Angels was a criminal organization.

While the Hells Angels trials were getting under way, Montreal police were completing another investigation, called Amigos, which focused on the Bandidos Motorcycle Club. It culminated in another massive roundup that effectively put an end to the Bandidos club in Quebec. A trial was held for five of the accused in 2004. It lasted eight months before a jury; 68 witnesses were heard, and all of the accused were convicted.

Last week, we broke all our previous records when we charged 156 Hells Angels and their associates in one single file. This is considerably larger than in the spring of 2001. There will almost definitely be more than one trial, and each trial that is held will be very lengthy. We can predict this already. We will have to start all over again and prove that the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club is a criminal organization. Although we are confident of our capacity to be successful, the fact is that the longer the trial lasts, the greater the danger that something might go wrong along the way. For example, for the trial to abort, all you have to do is have somebody very important get sick. If the judge, the lead prosecutor, or more than two members of the jury get sick along the way and have to quit, it can cause the whole trial to abort, and you have to start all over again. The longer the trial, the more the chances that something will go wrong.

Consequently, I urge you to seriously consider legislation that will declare the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club to be a criminal organization once and for all.

Thank you for your attention.