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.

Criminal Code

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak to this very important piece of legislation. Across Canada, we have been witnessing an escalation in organized crime activity, including gang violence.

Like a number of Canadians, I am profoundly troubled by the wave of violence associated with organized crime and particularly with street gangs.

Organized crime affects all our communities in all the regions of this great country and I think it would be fair for me to say that there is unanimous agreement, hopefully, from all parties, that action is needed. Despite what we saw with the concurrence motion today, I am hoping that the hon. members at this end of the House will get the message that Canadians want us to move forward on organized crime legislation.

The last thing Canadians want at this time is to have this bill held up by political posturing and to unduly delay these necessary Criminal Code measures to effectively fight organized crime and gangs.

I will be clear that this bill is a priority for this government and, therefore, we will only be putting up a few speakers to try to expedite its passage. We would expect the bill to be debated and passed to the Senate before the Easter break. This would ensure the bill receives royal assent well before the summer recess.

It is incumbent, in my opinion, upon all members of Parliament to walk the walk and talk the talk to ensure legislation like this gets passed in the House.

With this bill, we are proposing firm but appropriate responses to some of the growing problems of organized crime and their threats to public safety. I am hopeful that hon. members will do the right thing and expedite its passage because, according to the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, approximately 900 identifiable organized crime groups are operating in urban and rural communities across Canada. The majority of these criminal organizations operate at the street level where they are generally referred to as street gangs. A high proportion of these groups are involved in trafficking in such things as drugs and stolen property.

This is why, coupled with this piece of legislation, we have introduced another bill as well. The next bill in our line of fighting crime in this country deals specifically with drugs because we know drugs are the currency of organized crime and gangs. I hope that bill receives appropriate treatment by the House, and by that I mean that it is expedited and moved through this process so Canadians will get the kind of laws they want and deserve.

Criminal organizations rely upon networking and collaboration with other criminal groups to conduct their illegal activities. However, regardless of their motives and their level of sophistication, these individuals are a plague on our communities. With these elicit activities comes, of course, gang violence and, tragically, this violence has profound effects--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but he will have 18 minutes when this debate resumes.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. Minister of Justice had the floor. He has 18 minutes left in the allotted time remaining for his remarks. I therefore call upon the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, if I took all 18 minutes, I am still not sure it would be enough. I get so excited when I talk about this subject.

Before the break I was talking about how difficult the challenges are when gangs get into fights with each other and the resulting human loss. The impact goes beyond the criminal subculture. In recent years there have been too many incidents where innocent Canadians have been killed as a result of gang activity. We have come to know their stories very well. For the most part, these victims lived and worked in our major cities, in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal. These tragedies remind us that the threats we face are very real.

During my visit to Vancouver a couple of weeks ago, I met with law enforcement agencies. They were very supportive of this organized crime legislation, as well as its companion piece, Bill C-15, the mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug offences. However, the officials did ask me to continue to do more. I have heard their requests. As a response, I have indicated to them that once we get these pieces of legislation passed, we have more. Indeed, today I introduced amendments to the Anti-terrorism Act to give law enforcement agencies the tools they have demanded over the years to combat terrorism in this country.

We must remain vigilant to ensure our citizens are protected from the full range of activities engaged in by organized crime. We take these threats seriously and view ensuring the safety and security of our people as one of the highest responsibilities of our government. Canadians are rightly concerned and they want action. In a 2007 survey on this issue, Canadians indicated that they believed organized crime is as serious a threat to Canada as terrorism. Nearly half of those surveyed indicated that they felt they were personally affected by organized crime. Approximately 89% of those surveyed know that organized crime is linked to drug trafficking. Just over half indicated that the new legislation was required to more effectively address organized crime.

Canadians are also voicing their concerns with their actions and their pens. Very recently, concerned citizens in British Columbia came together to publicly express their outrage with the gang violence that is impacting their lives. In short, they said that enough is enough. So, too, have the residents of the Hobbema reserve in Alberta. I have received letters from concerned residents there urging me and our government to take decisive action to address the threats that gangs are posing to their communities.

This government agrees that enough is enough and believes it is time to strengthen the criminal justice system so that offenders are properly held to account. Broadly speaking, this bill focuses on four areas: making gang murders automatically first degree; creating a new offence to target drive-by and other reckless shootings; fortifying the scheme for responding to assaults against police and other peace and public officers; and strengthening the gang peace bond provisions.

Taken together, these improvements to our criminal law will provide powerful new tools for law enforcement to respond to the destructive impacts that organized crime has on our communities. How will they do this? With respect to murders that can be linked to organized crime, we are proposing amendments that would automatically treat these cases as first degree murder regardless of whether they were planned and deliberate. These are, in my opinion, extremely important amendments.

I have already spoken of some of the innocent victims of gang violence, but I also want to provide some additional context on the seriousness of the issue. According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, in 2007 there were 117 gang-related homicides in Canada. In fact, gang-related homicides now account for approximately 20% of all murders in Canada. In British Columbia, I was told that that number is approximately 40%. This is to be contrasted with the fact that, for the most part, the homicide rate is decreasing in Canada. This troubling trend of gang-related homicides demands immediate attention.

Our proposed amendments provide two separate tests to address murders that are connected to organized crime.

First, if it can be established that the murder itself was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, then it will be classified as first degree murder even in the absence of planning or deliberation.

Second, if it can be established that the murder occurred while the person was committing or attempting to commit another indictable offence for the benefit of, or at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, then it will be classified as first degree murder. The person would have to be guilty of murder, of course, in the circumstances. I want to emphasize we are not talking about some form of constructive murder or raising manslaughter to murder in these circumstances. Rather, the effect of the provision would be to make any murder committed in the course of another criminal organization offence first degree rather than second degree.

A person found guilty of first degree murder is sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years.

These amendments to section 231 of our Criminal Code mean that police officers and prosecutors have another set of tools to treat gang murders as the extremely serious cases that they are.

We also are proposing that a new offence be added to the Criminal Code which would target drive-by and other intentional shootings involving reckless disregard for the life or safety of others.

I believe this new offence will be of immense benefit to those on the front line investigating and prosecuting many of these public shooting cases.

Currently offences available to prosecute these kinds of cases include careless use of a firearm or discharge of a firearm with intent to cause bodily harm. The negligence based offences do not appropriately capture the severity of a drive-by scenario which involves consciously reckless conduct.

Section 244 on the other hand requires proof that the firearm was discharged at a particular person with a specific intent to cause bodily harm, and this is not good enough. While more appropriate if the shooter does have a particular target, it can sometimes be difficult to prove a drive-by shooting scenario where the intent is to intimidate a rival gang, or in many cases the shooter may just be firing wildly without any particular target.

Our proposed offence will fill a gap in the Criminal Code and provide a tailored response to this behaviour. This new offence requires proof that the accused specifically turned his or her mind to the fact that discharging his or her firearm would jeopardize the life or safety of another person, and appreciating this fact, the accused still went ahead. Quite simply, these individuals just do not care.

Canadians should rightly feel outrage at the wanton disregard that is shown for their safety when members of organized criminal groups, such as street gangs, carry out drive-by or other reckless shootings. This kind of criminal behaviour is deserving of more serious penalties and we are prepared to accommodate that.

The proposed penalty scheme mirrors that of similar serious offences involving the use of firearms, such as section 244. This offence would be punishable by a mandatory prison term of four years, up to a maximum of fourteen years. The mandatory sentence would increase to five years if the offence was committed for the benefit of, or at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, or involved the use of a prohibited or restricted firearm, such as a handgun or automatic firearm.

In addition, repeat offenders in these circumstances would be subject to a higher mandatory penalty of seven years' imprisonment. It sends the message: five years the first time, but understanding that some people do not always get the message the first time, they get seven years in the hope that this will impress upon them the seriousness of their actions.

As is already the case in the Criminal Code, there is a listed class of serious offences involving the use of firearms. Under our legislation these serious offences would qualify as a previous offence for the purposes of the increased mandatory jail term. As is clear, this new offence would provide a powerful new tool to target not only drive-by shootings but any shooting which involves consciously reckless behaviour.

The third area of reform relates to assaults committed against police, peace and public officers and those who are entrusted with maintaining law and order and preserving public peace.

The Criminal Code currently treats some acts of violence committed against peace officers separately from the same acts committed against the general public. For example, section 270 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to assault a police officer in the execution of his or her duties.

At the other end of the spectrum, section 231 of the Criminal Code automatically classifies the murder of a peace officer acting in the course of his or her duties as first degree murder, regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate. However, there are no offences covering the middle range of behaviour, which are assaults that involve weapons or cause bodily harm or aggravated assaults directed at these individuals. We are proposing to fill that gap in the Criminal Code's treatment of violent acts committed against police and peace officers by creating these two new offences. It is time that these changes be made.

The first offence would prohibit the assault of a peace officer involving a weapon or which causes bodily harm. This would be a hybrid offence punishable by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment on indictment. The second offence would prohibit the aggravated assault of a peace officer. This would be a straight indictable offence punishable by a maximum of 14 years.

Taken together, these two offences along with the existing offences would create a complete and separate scheme within the Criminal Code to respond to violence committed against peace officers carrying out their duties. These amendments will address assaults not only on police officers, but on prison guards, wardens, border and coast guards to name just a few.

These amendments send out a clear message: assaults committed against law enforcement officers will not be tolerated. These attacks not only put the lives or safety of the individual officers at risk, they also attack and undermine the justice system more broadly.

In order to ensure that these offences are adequately punished, we have proposed amendments that would require a court, when sentencing an offender for any of the specific offences targeting assaults against police officers, to give primary consideration to the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The same principle would also apply to cases involving the intimidation of justice system participants, including judges, prosecutors, jurors, and many others who play an important role in the criminal justice system. This conduct is expressly designed to undermine the rule of law and the justice system more broadly and must be strongly denounced and punished.

The fourth issue that is being addressed in this bill relates to the use of the recognizance order that is specifically aimed at preventing the commission of an organized crime offence, terrorist offence or intimidation of a justice system participant offence. Section 810.01 was first added to the Criminal Code in 1998 and its purpose, as with other recognizance orders, is the prevention of future harm.

Ten years later, in 2008, our government's Tackling Violent Crime Act was passed. Among other things, that legislation made changes to strengthen the recognizance provisions that address serious personal injury offences and certain sexual offences against children.

We are now proposing similar amendments to the gang peace bond provisions. Specifically, we are making changes to clarify that when imposing conditions as part of the order, a judge has very broad discretion to order any reasonable conditions that are desirable in order to secure the good conduct of the person before the court. This flexibility is extremely important because it provides those dealing with these persons with the framework they need to craft the most appropriate response to address the particular facts and circumstances of the case at hand. This helps avoid a cookie cutter approach and will result in more effective conditions being ordered. Any breaches of the conditions imposed will make the person subject to prosecution for the breach.

The second significant change we are proposing in this area relates to the length of the peace bond. Like the Tackling Violent Crime Act, we are proposing that the duration of the peace bonds be up to two years when it is established that the defendant has been previously convicted of an organized crime offence, a terrorism offence, or an intimidation of a justice system participant offence.

In the case of repeat offenders, 12 months was often not enough time and this would necessitate a prosecutor having to go back to court to seek a new order. This change will assist in that regard and thereby ease some of the burdens faced by those responsible for the administration of justice.

This bill includes a number of other supporting provisions that I will briefly highlight.

We are proposing to add the offences created by this bill and existing offence to section 183 of the Criminal Code in order to give police officers the ability to seek a wiretap authorization when investigating these crimes.

The bill would apply this to the two new peace officer assault offences, the new offence targeting drive-by and other reckless shootings, and the existing offence of discharging a firearm with intent to cause bodily harm. This will be welcome by police agencies across this country.

In addition, we are proposing to add new offences to the list of offences that are considered to be primary designated offences for the purposes of the DNA data bank.

I would be remiss in discussing these proposals if I did not acknowledge the tremendous level of co-operation between myself, my provincial and territorial counterparts, and the members of my own caucus. I have to say that the dialogue that I have had with them, the support that I have received from them and the encouragement they have received from their constituents to get behind these pieces of legislation has been very edifying and gratifying for me. A number of organizations, such as the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, have supported a number of the recommendations.

Again, this is exactly what this country needs. These are steps in the right direction. As I indicated during question period and in the brief time I had prior to question period, this is just one of a number of measures that we are taking as a government. We also have the bill, which I call a companion piece to this, on drugs that sends out the right message to people who want to get involved with the drug trade. This is an important component of it.

When people ask me about this and about that, I always tell them that we have a lot more to do in this area and we are just the group of individuals who are prepared to do that.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the minister and his outline of the bill was very clear. As he knows, we are very supportive of a number of items in the bill, so I thank him for bringing forward these items.

I do have one comment and a few questions. The minister has been informed in the past a few times that some of these provisions do not have an effect on denunciation and deterrence. That should not be the main motivation but it does not mean we should not do a number of these things.

The justice minister in B.C. asked for a couple of things. One was to change the two-for-one remand credit. As he knows, that has been a sore point. I wonder if he will be addressing that at some time.

The second thing the B.C. justice minister asked for was the modernizing of investigative techniques. I know the member knows that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has done some great work on this. The police are sort of stymied in their work. I will not explain it because I do not have time.

The last part of my question relates to gang murders. I am delighted that he is taking them on here, but are there any other initiatives related to the prevention of gang murders in some of the other programs and plans of the government? It would a helpful addition to the legislation.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the last part first.

I indicated, in the short period of time I had during question period, that the Prime Minister announced in Winnipeg the national anti-drug strategy. Two-thirds of the new money in that program went directly to programs to help educate and work with individuals who, unfortunately, have become addicted or might consider experimenting with drugs.

I was very pleased to see that. There are a whole group of initiatives that have been undertaken by this government under the guns, gangs and drugs initiatives, the national crime prevention programs, whereby individuals, groups and governments can make application to get assistance to help work with people because we want to get people out of this business. We want to discourage them from getting into it and we want to help those who have found themselves addicted.

Part of what needs to be done is sending out the correct message to these individuals that these kinds of actions will not be tolerated.

When we were discussing the Tackling Violent Crime Act, I alluded to the fact that we had mandatory jail times in there for people who commit serious firearms offences. One of the opposition members said to me that my problem was that I did not understand that sometimes these people do not understand the consequences of their actions. I said that that was where I and my government wanted to help. We want those people to get the message and five years in a federal penitentiary is a great start. We are even going further. If they do not get the message the first time, they will get seven years in a penitentiary because that will give them the opportunity to understand just how serious these offences are.

This is what we are doing in this bill as well. We are giving those individuals time to figure out what they are doing. However, here is the other part of it. We are helping to break up gang activity. Police officers in British Columbia told me that getting these people off the street will disrupt the gang activity.

It is a comprehensive approach, with respect to the hon. member's question. With respect to the other items, I do not want to get into the situation that we were in in the last Parliament. We had five good bills for about a year and a half none of them passed. They were all bills that we needed and that were important for Canada but because it was a minority Parliament none of them went through.

I do not want to get into that situation again so we are taking these one step at a time. We have two bills. I introduced another bill, the third one, the anti-terrorism act provisions, and we know how hard that was to get that through the last Parliament. I am optimistic that with the increased focus, this 11th hour conversion that we are seeing from so many members of the House of Commons, that they will be on side with us--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Question and comments, the hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister was heading down the slippery slope of partisanship. It is a good thing you stood up.

I want to be clear that we will certainly support this bill in principle. In committee, we will look at which amendments should be reported. It is true that we have been rather resistant to mandatory minimum sentences. Our position is supported by a wealth of literature that clearly shows that mandatory minimum sentences are not effective deterrents but that the efficacy of the sanction and the real fear of being arrested do have a deterrent effect.

That is not the question I want to ask the minister. I was in the House when Bill C-95, which the Liberals authored, was passed in 1997 and the offence of gangsterism was first created. Now, anyone who commits a murder for the benefit or at the direction of a criminal organization as defined in sections 467.11, 467.12 and 467.13 of the Criminal Code is liable to imprisonment for life.

I would like to understand. I am not against this and I want to be very clear. How will classifying the offence as first degree murder change things? How is this different from the existing law? That is my question for the minister.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member points out how difficult it is to get anything done. I think I have the grocery list of his reservations. He says that his party will support certain of the principles. Well, that is encouraging. He says that his party will consider some amendments and it has some problems with mandatory minimum sentences. This is why nothing was done in the last Parliament. These things were held up. These were good things that out the right message.

The hon. member wants to know what happens if, instead of getting 10 years, a person gets a lesser sentence, but now it will be increased to 25 years for someone committing murder, will this stop this individual. It may or may not but I do know that for last 15 years they will not be out on the streets participating in gangland activity and there will be a lot fewer victims in this country when longer sentences are served.

The hon. member has completely focused on the individual who has committed these terrible crimes. I say, how many people are victims or will be protected from being victims when we do get these individuals off the streets? I ask the hon. member to put aside his ideology with respect to this and think of his constituents. He should talk to the police forces in Montreal. Police agencies in Montreal tell me that they want these kinds of provisions. They want help on these issues.

I am hoping that the hon. member will not be stuck in the rut that he and members of his party are in and support these measures and get them going because we have a lot more to do.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The member for Hochelaga for a very brief question.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, under the Criminal Code, a person who commits a murder for the benefit of a criminal organization is liable to imprisonment for life.

I would ask the minister to stop serving up his patented Conservative rhetoric and tell us how the new offence he is creating will be different. That is my question, and I would like a clear answer.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. minister has one minute to answer.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member thinks it is the same, then he should get right behind this and support it. If he thinks this is not a big change, there should not be any big problem for him.

I have told him before that his constituents will actually thank him for getting tough on criminals and the people involved in gangland activity, as opposed to people complaining about the poor fellow getting 25 years in jail. His constituents will thank him for moving ahead on these things and making our streets safer. That is what he should be doing.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The member for Saint-Boniface for another very brief question.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend our justice minister for everything that he pointed out here today.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is the member not in her regular seat?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

No, I am not in my chair.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I cannot recognize the member.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Beauséjour.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to speak to the House when you have been in the chair. I congratulate you on your appointment as Acting Speaker.

I am very happy to speak on behalf of the Liberal opposition on Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants).

Let me be very clear at the outset: the Liberal Party will be supporting Bill C-14. In fact, the Liberal Party offered to work with the government to expedite the passage not only of Bill C-14, but of the companion Bill C-15, which amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. We see this debate as important, but we also see a need to be expeditious and to ensure that these measures are adopted in due course, without undue obstruction or delay.

The Liberal Party views the improvements brought in Bill C-14 as modest measures. We see them as needed to address the real concern for public safety, particularly in communities that have seen the devastating effects and associated violence of organized crime, most recently in Vancouver. We think the government could have gone further in a number of measures. I will be addressing those in a few minutes.

Basically, Bill C-14 seeks to make four changes. It changes the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code so that every murder committed in connection with a criminal organization is to be considered first-degree murder, regardless of whether there was premeditation. It creates a separate drive-by shooting offence, with a minimum mandatory sentence of four years.

The minister likes to talk about creating this important drive-by shooting offence. If he is honest, he will hardly be able to say that it is a glaring hole in the Criminal Code at present. Anybody who engages in such reckless criminal behaviour as a drive-by shooting surely would be facing severe criminal penalties now. However, if the bill provides a measure of assurance to the public that there would be a separate offence with a four-year mandatory minimum sentence, the Liberal Party sees that as reasonable.

Bill C-14 also creates mandatory minimum sentences for the offences of assault with a weapon and aggravated assault on a peace officer, and it seeks to protect others who work in the criminal justice system, including prosecutors and judges. It extends the duration of recognizance by two years for a person who has previously been convicted of a gang-related or terrorism offence or who is suspected of planning a similar offence.

We in the Liberal Party recognize that the measures in Bill C-14 are modest, but necessary to reassure the public, which is increasingly concerned about public safety in certain communities. Vancouver, recently, and, in the past, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and even Halifax, in the Maritimes, where I come from, have had problems with gangsterism and organized crime. This is a real concern for people.

To some degree, the Prime Minister and the minister himself, in their discussions on changes to the Criminal Code are always looking for confrontation. They try to turn the dicussions into partisan matters. They say the government supports these measures but that we in opposition keep trying to block, delay or prevent the passage of them. That is why I am pleased to be able to say the Liberal Party offered to fast-track passage of Bill C-14 and Bill C-15, two bills we will support.

It is often useful to examine a bill from the standpoint of what is not in it.

What specific items might the government have included in Bill C-14 that it did not put in?

We are particularly worried about the three requests the Government of British Columbia made. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General of British Columbia made these requests when they were in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago.

They met with opposition parties and members of the government. They asked Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to reduce the two-for-one remand credit. When somebody is incarcerated before a trial or a conviction because the person has been denied bail or chooses to waive bail and in fact is in a detention centre prior to a trial, often the courts will count the time spent in pre-trial custody as two days for every one day of a sentence, which leads to certain public consternation. When a sentence is ultimately imposed by the judge, the judge often reduces the sentence by a large factor for pre-trial custody.

In the view of the Government of British Columbia and in our view, that can be reduced. We can legislatively restrict the ability of the courts to allow for that two-for-one credit. We are told that in some jurisdictions, it can be as high as three for one, and we think it has become an abuse of the justice system.

The Government of British Columbia also asked for improvements to lawful access and to modernize investigative techniques. Often members of organized crime have the latest communications equipment and the most sophisticated electronic communications. Our laws with respect to search warrants and electronic surveillance have not kept up with this new technology. Improvements can be made to criminal legislation to allow police, when they get a search warrant, to be able to gain access to communications on cellphones, in emails or on wireless communication devices such as BlackBerrys.

My colleague, the Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, has a private member's bill that seeks to do exactly this. A Liberal bill introduced by the previous Liberal government in 2005 sought to modernize investigative techniques. There again the government chose not to move on that.

The government may decide to introduce legislation to deal with the remand credit, to deal with modernizing investigative techniques, and to look at the issue of disclosure, which has become a huge burden on provincial justice systems. These are the three things we heard the Attorney General of British Columbia cite as being priorities to deal with the crisis there. If the government decides to move on those issues, we would work with it to expeditiously pass reasonable measures to deal with those issues as well.

We were somewhat disappointed by Bill C-14 and have described its measures as modest, because the bill is silent on these improvements.

One of the difficulties we have also with the Conservatives' approach to criminal justice is that they obsessively focus on the back end of the problem. They like to talk about more severe punishment. They like to talk about stiffer sentences.

Those improvements have their place in a criminal justice system, and we acknowledge that if they are balanced and reasonable, we can in fact improve criminal legislation to deal with the worst offenders and the most serious crimes.

However, what they never talk about is the other part of the criminal justice system: prevention.

The Conservatives like to have a policy that punishes the offender once there is already a victim, instead of taking increased steps to work with police, community groups, provincial governments and not-for-profit groups that want to do things in the community to try to reduce and prevent crime before there is a victim. In cases of organized crime, victims often face tragic consequences, including serious violence or loss of life.

If one talks about getting tough on crime, one has to accept that we also need, for example, to work with provincial governments on difficult issues such as mental health and addictions. If there is a great shortage of in-patient addiction facilities in my province of New Brunswick and an inadequate mental health system to deal with criminal justice circumstances, then communities are not as safe as they could be if the Government of Canada worked with the Province of New Brunswick and other provinces to meet their specific needs.

The Province of New Brunswick is looking at setting up a drug court. In certain cases involving drug addicts who have not participated in organized crime or violent offences, such a court may offer a sentencing regime that will deal with the root cause of their criminal activity, their addiction, and thus make the community safer by bringing about treatment and, hopefully, a cure for somebody who faces something as difficult as a serious drug addiction.

These are important elements of a criminal justice plan as well, but the government consistently fails to advocate in favour of greater resources for police or greater resources to help provinces with a shortage of crown prosecutors, or to work with provinces to improve mental health services, addiction services or youth programs, which are often essential in improving the security of a community.

We consider these matters just as important as the legitimate desire of the public to have teeth added not only to the Criminal Code but particularly to the sentences given criminals who commit the most serious crimes.

Instead of introducing a number of measures at once, the minister insists on bringing us his bills one at a time. Is it because the Conservatives have nothing else on their legislative agenda? Is it because they are still trying to make criminal justice announcements to override the bad economic news Canadians now read and hear about almost daily? We do not know, but if the Conservatives insist on turning these matters into partisan debates, they will end up undermining their own idea of passing bills to improve public safety.

I will conclude by saying every member of the House must accept the responsibility to improve the safety of all our communities. I represent a rural community in New Brunswick. The largest town is probably Sackville, New Brunswick, where Mount Allison University is located. It has a population of around 5,000 people. Other members in the House represent some very large metropolitan areas, some of Canada's largest and most dynamic cities, and they are seeing very difficult challenges around organized crime and violent crime.

I say that if we work together cooperatively in a balanced and measured way, we can collectively make improvements to criminal legislation that will make communities safer. At the same time, we can respect the individual rights of Canadians and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We can also do a lot more around preventing crime, as well as around preventing victims from being created and thus having to punish an accused person.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that I also believe there is no greater responsibility for any government than to protect its citizens. The safety and security of citizens is at the forefront of what our government is trying to do.

I would point out that we have addressed many issues that our police services have asked for. As a former police officer, I believe very strongly in the measures that have been brought forward by this government.

I would like to ask the member why, during his party's 13 years in power, his government did not address these very serious things, such as mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes, the reverse-onus situation and the age of protection. Why did you get none of that done during your 13 years, and now you choose to criticize the fact that we have finally moved things forward?

You also never mentioned victims, and I assure you that I stand here because victims are at the forefront of everything I do in justice. I would remind you that under your government, the Youth Criminal Justice Act was brought forward, an act that completely devastated families and our youth. I ask you why you have done nothing to support measures to change that either.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, the member in her question kept referring to “your government” and why “you” did nothing. I would not purport to say that you have done nothing about organized crime and you have not been tough on crime. I hope the member did not mean to cast aspersions on you.

When the member pretended, as those members always do, that the previous Liberal government did not do enough, she may not have been in the House when the member for Hochelaga made reference to a very important improvement that the previous Liberal government made with respect to creating organized crime legislation in Canada as response to the tragedy, in many ways, that Quebec was seeing with organized crime about 10 years ago. I think the member for Hochelaga was very pleased that Parliament adopted those measures under a Liberal government.

The member forgets, for example, that a previous Liberal government dealt with the reverse onus on serious gun crimes. A previous Liberal government always took public safety seriously. What we did not do was seek to take public concern and the tragedy of violent crime and turn it into a partisan issue, with empty rhetoric, and pretend somehow that we alone had the virtue in wanting to make communities safer.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would ask all members to address their comments through the Chair and in the third person to their colleagues.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hochelaga.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Lord knows you are a fine example of femininity.

I am not explaining my confusion very well and I am sorry. I find it hard to understand why they want to turn this into a partisan debate when lives are being destroyed in some of our communities and it is important for us to work together and cooperate.

TheMinister of Justice rose a little while ago—you were in the Chair, Madam Speaker—and was disrespectful to me. I do not want to make too much out of it, but implying that some people are less concerned than others about the organized crime problem is very nasty.

I want to ask this of the hon. member for Beauséjour. In times like these, when communities all over Quebec and Canada are badly hurt by the threats looming over them, has the time not come to be cooperative and non-partisan?

Should we not put a stop to the nastiness so characteristic of some members who think certain people are sensitive while others are not?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Hochelaga for his question. I share his sentiments exactly. I have had the privilege of working on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with a number of members, including the Bloc Québécois justice critic, the hon. member for Hochelaga. I think we work well together on improving Canadian legislation, especially in regard to the safety of our communities.

The hon. member for Hochelaga is certainly sincerely concerned about public safety, although the Conservative members might not often be as sensitive as he is or as I am, for example, to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If we are going to work together on improving the Criminal Code, we should do so in a collegial way with the interests of our communities uppermost in our minds. The Conservatives always insist on turning these situations into partisan wrangling.

Ultimately, it was probably because the minister referred in his speech to the antiterrorism bill he introduced today, forgetting to mention that it died on the order paper two years ago. Suddenly the Conservatives decided today to re-introduce a bill they have ignored for two years. It is often just a diversion, a way of trying to distract attention.

I think it is because we are going through very difficult times and the government does not have any answers. It is trying to hide its economic ineptitude.

I fully agree with the hon. member for Hochelaga that we should have serious debates on these issues, focusing on improving public safety, and not just partisan wrangling.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about protecting Canadian citizens and the victims. Why did the Liberals bring in the gun registry? We have more police officers dying on the job because the gun registry came into effect.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised to hear the member say that more people are dying because the gun registry came into effect. That makes no sense at all.

The Conservatives have always had a hidden agenda to gut control legislation. They try to introduce a number of bills aimed at weakening gun control legislation in Canada. They do not have the courage to bring it in as a government bill and take the responsibility for telling Canadians and victims of crimes that they do not believe in gun control. What they prefer to do is use private members' bills and amnesties to basically gut an instrument that Canadian police officers use thousands of times a day.

The member talked about gun control. There is a private member's bill before the House that deals with gun control legislation. The Canadian Association of Police Chiefs has called on all parties to vote against the Conservative private member's bill, which seeks to weaken the gun registry and gun control.

If, somehow, this has lead to the death of police officers and citizens, it is news to the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for his tone in this debate.

I remind the government members, and the minister in particular, that histrionics do not criminal law better make.

It is important for us to remember that the Conservative Party is doing what it does best. It is rallying around its mantra of trying to frighten Canadians. It is rallying around its mantra of creating the crisis. All of this, and I ask my colleague to respond to it, because it simply cannot deal with the emerging economic crisis which is weighing upon it.

As a result, the Conservatives have to mount their 50,000 square foot fear factory in my riding, their campaign headquarters, and begin to try and turn everybody's attention away from the economic realities of hundreds of thousands of job losses. Rather than deal with the insecurity Canadians feel, they torque up their law and order agenda.

Does my colleague think that is the way we should approach these important issues and how might he present this otherwise?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Beauséjour has 40 seconds to respond.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Then I suppose, Madam Speaker, that I shall have to be brief.

My colleague, the member for Ottawa South, as usual, has summarized a great sentiment that many of us in the House feel. The Conservative Party seeks to make out of tragedies, public safety and horrible acts of criminal violence a partisan advantage. Instead of the Conservatives asking what we can do together to improve criminal legislation, to toughen up criminal legislation with respect to the worst offenders, at the same investing in prevention and measures that will make communities safer, they seek to camouflage the fact that the economy is in trouble and they have no plan.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, a little background is in order. Earlier, in a tone of voice neither friendly nor courteous, and certainly not the sort of tone one would expect from a man whose job it is to work toward achieving consensus on these issues, the Minister of Justice suggested that the party I represent, the Bloc Québécois, has not taken a serious enough interest in organized crime issues. I would like to take another look at some of the facts.

I was elected in October 1993. The Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Chrétien, had to go to a NATO meeting, so Parliament was convened in January. In August 1995, a car bomb took the life of young Daniel Desrochers. That was when the impact of motorcycle gang wars on civil society began to receive broad media coverage. I would like to point out that what people in British Columbia, particularly the greater Vancouver region, are going through now, unfortunately, is something we experienced to an even greater extent between 1995 and 1998.

In 1995, I introduced the first anti-gang bill. I well remember my discussions with senior federal officials. At the time, Allan Rock was the Minister of Justice, and some of his officials convinced him that we could put an end to organized crime using conspiracy provisions. I cultivated my police force contacts. A man by the name of Pierre Sangolo taught me a lot about organized crime. He was the Montreal police officer in charge of the file. I was a young member of Parliament then, just 31 years old. I had been elected a little over two years before, and I had never in my life had any need to pay attention to organized crime. I had vague memories of my parents taking an interest in the Commission of Inquiry on Organized Crime (CIOC). I was young, and I knew that organized crime could poison the communities it targeted.

Pierre Sangolo, a Montreal police officer, explained to me that a certain number of conditions have to be in place for organized crime to flourish. For example, organized crime is not necessarily the same here as it in in developing countries. In order for organized crime to exist, there have to be some indicators of wealth and lines of communication. Organized crime operates in the import and export markets. Not only does organized crime make itself at home in wealthy societies with good lines of communication, it also at home in societies with a certain amount of bureaucracy. In the case we are interested in, it is a question of the bureaucracy of the legal system. This bureaucracy has grown up mainly because of the charter and the multiple appeals that are possible when one goes to court.

And so, I introduced the first anti-gang bill. At that time, the Liberals formed the government. It took up a bill that became a government bill, Bill C-95, which created the criminal organization, or gangsterism, offence. That reinforced the idea that there was more to worry about than crimes committed on an individual basis, conspiracy, premeditation and organized criminal attacks. It meant that the ringleaders had to be targeted. Those who give the orders and plan the operations are not the ones who carry them out. In the legal system as it existed then, we had the means to deal with those who carried out the orders, but we did not have many tools to attack those at the top of the organized crime pyramid.

In large part thanks to the inspiration and leadership of the Bloc Québécois, Bill C-95 created a new offence. When five people belong to an organization and any one of those people commits a serious offence, an offence punishable by more than five years of imprisonment and from which the individual stood to gain financially, that was considered a new offence called participation in a criminal organization.

The bill was passed in 1997. From what I remember, all parties supported that bill. The next year, in 1998, the Montreal police service and other police forces told us that the number five made enforcing the law too difficult. What they were seeing was the creation of all kinds of satellite gangs and it was difficult to find five people who had been convicted of offences punishable by more than five years in prison. In Bill C-24, which, if memory serves, was introduced by Anne McLellan, the number was reduced from five to three. It was the Bloc Québécois that worked hard and got results. At the time, Richard Marceau, the hon. member for Charlesbourg, was the Bloc's justice critic. We managed to get the government to remove $1,000 bills from circulation, since we knew that $1,000 bills helped drug traffickers and people involved in organized crime. I am convinced that if I did a quick survey here and asked my fellow members how many have a $1,000 bill in their pocket, I doubt that anyone here, whether MPs, clerks or the Chair, would have a $1,000 bill in their possession, even though we all earn a good living.

It was also the Bloc Québécois that managed to create a new offence allowing for reverse onus of proof regarding the origin of the proceeds of crime acquired by criminal organizations. Of course, we realized that reversing the onus of proof is always a means of last resort in law. Given that the Crown and the defence do not have the same means, the Crown must prove that an offence was committed. However, we felt that the problem was serious enough that, once a guilty verdict was pronounced, there should be a reverse onus of proof regarding the proceeds of crime.

The Bloc Québécois led the way in having these measures adopted. That is why I take exception to the fact that the Minister of Justice, who too often is narrow-minded in his interventions, implied that we were negligent, that we were not steadfast, that we were not concerned about the issue of organized crime. The police services I have worked with for a number of years—as did my predecessor, the member for Charlesbourg, and Michel Bellehumeur before him, who was once the Bloc justice critic—can confirm that we have always been very concerned about organized crime.

I say to the government that we will support this bill. We are in favour of its objective. I met with the Attorney General of British Columbia. He explained the situation in his province. He proposed three measures. We truly hope that two will be implemented. The first concerns deducting from the sentence double the amount of time served in detention prior to trial. I will come back to this. The second concerns the issue of accelerated release. This is a longstanding demand.

The third measure on which we need a bit more reflection and information is the whole notion of the Crown's ability to restrict the disclosure of evidence, which would of course be contrary to certain Supreme Court judgments, Stinchcombe in particular. We must therefore ensure, when it comes to the disclosure of evidence during the preliminary inquiry and the trial, that this is not in contravention of the rules of fairness that must exist when a trial is involved, particularly a criminal trial where it may be a matter of imprisonment and life imprisonment.

We are going to support this bill. Can I tell the Minister of Justice and the government that we will not be presenting any amendments? Certainly not. The purpose of referring a bill to a committee is to hear witnesses. We want to work with diligence. We are aware that there is a worrisome situation in British Columbia, but we are not going to rush things. We are going to work seriously but we are not going to make a commitment to present no amendments.

For example, the matter of mandatory minimum sentences is an obvious problem for us. Each time a provision of the Criminal Code contains a mandatory minimum sentence, we are sending the message that we do not trust the judiciary. Each case before the courts is individual, and justice needs to be individualized as well. We are not comfortable with anyone wanting to tie the hands of the judiciary. It is possible that the Bloc Québécois will bring in some amendments concerning mandatory minimum sentences. We have always maintained the same position. We are consistent on this.

I am also well aware that organized crime is an extremely changeable reality, a highly dynamic phenomenon. When I first began to take an interest in organized crime in 1995, at the age of 31, there was very little reference to street gangs. It was motorcycle gangs, the Hells Angels, the Rockers. There were gang wars in various communities. In recent years, another phenomenon has emerged: street gangs.

What characterizes street gangs? As far as intelligence gathering is concerned, this different phenomenon presents some difficulties. First of all, they are groups that are far harder to do surveillance on, far less organized, far less structured. I do not know whether anyone here has had the opportunity to look at an organization chart of the Hells Angels, with their sergeants at arms and their presidents. It is a highly structured organization with implacable rules and regulations. We are well aware that any Hells Angel who does not stick to the rules is liable to be killed. Not that I am sorry about that in any way, but what I am saying is that, when street gangs are involved, they are less organized groups, and so harder to wiretap, harder to do surveillance on, and less predictable in their criminal behaviour.

I was told that when it comes to street gangs, we are seeing a bit of a second generation. People in street gangs tend to be a little older. These people are not, on average, 14, 15 or 16. They tend to be a little older than that. Street gangs are not necessarily based on ethnic origin alone anymore. We know that there have been some alliances with organized crime groups and that there are now Caucasians—white people—who are in important positions in the hierarchy of street gangs. Those are some of the realities that we must try to understand more at committee.

The main new feature in this bill is the following. We are told that when a murder—a homicide—is committed for the benefit of or at the direction of a criminal organization, as set out in section 467.11, 12 and 13 of the Criminal Code, it will automatically be deemed a first degree murder.

Murder in the first degree means that it was premeditated. My colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, as a former justice minister, was quite right to remind me that the difference between a first degree murder and a second degree murder is the deliberate nature, the use of violence and the use of a weapon in the case of first degree murder.

I do not oppose the creation of this offence in the Criminal Code. I simply want to understand. It is my impression that, already at this time, if someone commits a homicide for the benefit of a criminal organization, that individual can be sentenced to life in prison with no parole eligibility for 25 years.

How will the creation of the new offence change anything? I am not saying it is irrelevant, but I want to understand.

I thought that the reason was that, when members of organized crime are brought before the courts, they might plead guilty to manslaughter. That must be the reason, I told myself.

Just now, when I put this question to the minister with my habitual courtesy, the minister got a bit annoyed. Not only did he get annoyed, but he raised his voice. Not only did he raise his voice, but he did not want to answer. Not only did he not want to answer, but he accused me of being an ideologue. Paradoxical, that. The Conservatives calling me an ideologue. What kind of a crazy world are we living in?

I was trying to get the Minister of Justice to explain this new offence to me, one which may be pertinent, well-founded, rational, but he did not answer the question. That will not stop us from supporting the bill in principle, but I believe it may not be a provision that is as original as the minister would have us believe.

This bill disappoints us in some ways as well. For example, we would have liked to hear about pre-trial detention. It is true that there was a time in the justice system—the older ones here will remember it—when people awaiting sentencing were kept in difficult conditions in penitentiaries. That we acknowledge, but has there not been a significant change in this area? Do we still need to say that, for every day of detention before trial, there will be two days deducted from sentences?

The Bloc Québécois wonders whether this practice ought not to be reviewed. We were concerned about this getting rushed through. How is it that a person who has had a fair trial can be released after a sixth of his sentence? Is there not something about this that should worry us as far as the peace we desire for our communities is concerned ?

I repeat, we are anxious to look at this bill in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We are not going to take a partisan approach. We have a full picture of what is going on in communities, in Vancouver and other parts of British Columbia. Moreover, there is no community anywhere that is sheltered from violent confrontations between criminal groups. I am not guaranteeing that we are not going to make amendments, but we do support the bill in principle.

I hope that all members of this House are not going to start impugning motives, and that they will all agree that we are all concerned by the safety of our fellow citizens and that we are going to bring to our work in committee a high-minded approach and broadness of outlook, as all serious parliamentarians must.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before we proceed to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the member for Malpeque, Agriculture.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened very intently to the comments of the member opposite. I am happy to hear that at least in principle his party is prepared to support Bill C-14.

I listened to his comments regarding mandatory minimum sentences and they disturbed me slightly. We have heard compelling testimony at the justice committee and elsewhere. The hon. member is a member of that committee and makes very constructive contributions to that committee and I commend him for that.

We have heard very compelling testimony from families of victims whose loved ones have been murdered by individuals with multiple Criminal Code convictions and while they were either on bail or on judicial interim release.

In light of that type of compelling testimony from the family members of deceased victims of crime, I am curious why he does not support the imposition of minimum mandatory sentences.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we most certainly feel for the victims. Naturally, I was touched. This morning I was rereading the testimony of Mr. Steve Brown and the mother of young Mohan, who was cruelly murdered on his way to a basketball practice. Of course we are touched by such cases. If I were asked whether we would be safe from this phenomenon because of mandatory minimum sentences, my answer would be no.

A judge who does his job well, and we have confidence in our judiciary, will hand down a sentence suited the offence. He will implement the provisions of the Criminal Code that are most pertinent to the offence he must examine. If the Crown is not satisfied with the decision and the sentence, there is the appeal process.

The member was not in the room when we heard from experts who have studied mandatory minimum sentences. None of them said that it is an effective measure. It is not effective because it suggests that a member of a criminal organization will be conversant with the Criminal Code and will plan a crime differently because it will result in a sentence of five rather than four years. The criminal world does not work like that.

Arrests are a much greater deterrent. That is why we agreed. The member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin spoke about this in the House. We would like to see more police in communities and more money for police investigations. However, mandatory minimum sentences are not the answer to the problem raised by my colleague.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, at first glance, I noticed two things about this new bill. It seems to me that several of the offences it would create are already in the Criminal Code. This bill covers more specific ways of committing crimes that are already prohibited. I may be making the same point.

There is something else of concern to those who think that minimum sentences are effective. Does he remember when there was a minimum sentence for importing marijuana, and what happened because of that?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member is right. I remember when I was in my first criminal law course, one of my professors asked us what the Criminal Code called for, and may still call for, for residential burglary. There were about thirty students in the class, each more enthusiastic than the last. We thought it might be six months, a year or two years, but in fact, the sentence could be as long as life in prison. My colleague is therefore right in saying that minimum sentences are not effective.

Second, my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is right in stating that many Criminal Code provisions fall under the generic heading of criminal negligence. Right now, there are provisions in the Criminal Code—added in 1997—that cover assault on a peace officer. This bill might not be quite as innovative as one might think. However, it is an attempt to address an urgent matter, and we are ready to give it serious consideration in committee.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I would like to ask him a very simple question. He has followed the Conservative government very closely for the past three-and-a-half years. Would he be able to help us understand how the government uses the procedure known as evidence based decision making? Is the evidence presented to defend the government's position or should we be hearing more?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his completely non-partisan question. I thank him for that focus. I agree with my colleague that it has happened in the past, and it is our job to remember, that some bills have been introduced in this House when scientific evidence was not always on-side with developing public policy.

We were talking about mandatory minimum sentences earlier. If my colleague who handles the human resources file were here, he would obviously criticize the fact that there is still a waiting period for the unemployed while the evidence shows that, in the current economic climate, eliminating it would be the best solution for everyone. The truth is that this government does not always agree with what we would call a certain scientific truth or, above all, practicality.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his usual eloquence. He delights us with his comments, which are always relevant.

I would like him to give us some more information about the fact that in Quebec we lean more towards social reintegration and transforming people than towards repression. Could he enlighten us a bit more on that?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague refers to the youth criminal justice system. What clearly synthesizes the policy of the government, or governments—since neither the Liberals nor the PQ have strayed far from this policy—is the right measure at the right time. We feel that if a youth is caught in time, has a social network and broad range of programs to back him up, this can yield results that are far more profitable than incarceration, which certain parties in this House are a bit too fond of.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber for a short question.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague has a long-standing concern about organized crime. I would like to know what he thinks about the display of membership in organized crime. We know that this is a problem; the mere fact of wearing the colours of a street gang or a group known to be linked to organized crime can intimidate people. I would like to know his thoughts on this and whether he has any suggestions about it to propose to us.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I also thank him in advance for meeting with the Canadian Arab Federation.

This is a very important question. For example, in the Lindsay case in British Columbia, some Hells Angels were arrested. One of the Hells Angels had left his wallet on his bike at a rally. Since everyone knew it belonged to a member of Hells Angels it was safe from theft. In other words, an entire reign of terror can go along with recognition of affiliation to a group identified by a patch. The Bloc has reflected on this and feels that once an organization has been deemed by a court of justice to be a criminal, the display of symbols linking a person to that organization should be banned.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a bit ironic that this bill is before us today because it is an anniversary for the Conservative government. It has been a full year since the government has had any legislation before the justice committee. The reason has been entirely in its hands throughout that period of time.

I thought it was doubly ironic to listen to the justice minister in question period today and in some of his responses to questions today praise to high heaven the Conservatives' role in being tough on crime and that the opposition parties were delaying legislation. Let us look at the real history. These are facts.

A year ago the Conservative chairman of the justice committee took it upon himself to thwart any further work by that committee for the balance of the session.

[An hon. member]

That is not true.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is true. I sat through all of that and it is true. I will repeat that and if anybody wants to take it outside the House, I would be quite happy to do that.

That is what happened. The government through its committee chair thwarted any work by the justice committee. It stalled all of the legislation. There were, as the justice minister said, five bills before the House and in that committee in that period of time and we could not deal with any of them because the chair constantly refused to allow the committee meetings to go ahead. That is what happened until June. We adjourned in June for our summer recess.

One has to ask, during that period of time, where was the government? Was it talking tough on crime? Was it telling the chairman to get back to work? No. Then what happened? The Prime Minister took it upon himself to decide that maybe he had a shot at a majority government. Does anyone think at any moment, at any second, it entered into his mind that he had to be tough on crime and keep the legislative process going to try to deal with some of the problems we are confronted with? Absolutely not. What did he do? He called an election. All of the bills that we had in the House and before the committee were gone.

What happened next? We came back in November after the election. The government was in trouble. The Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament. Does anyone think that at any time, for even a nanosecond he took into account his championing of being tough on crime? Absolutely not.

We came back after prorogation. We have been here for two months, and today for the first time we are debating the crime bill.

That is the record of the government. I know I am not supposed to use this term, but it is the height of lack of credibility on the Conservatives' part when they stand in the House, or out on the hustings and before public groups and claim they are tough on crime and it is a major consideration for them. When one looks at the history over the last 12 to 13 months, it is simply not true.

I have been asked on a number of occasions since Bill C-14 was tabled as to whether we would support it. I have indicated we would. Because of some of the provisions that are in it, I have been asked why. There are three reasons.

There are two good provisions in it. In the bill, we are extending protection to our police officers and our justice officials, something that has been needed for quite some time. Quite frankly, it could have been done in a number of criminal justice bills that we have had for the last four years, both under the Liberals and the Conservatives but it was never done until finally we are getting to it now.

Another reason for supporting it is that there are some specific provisions which go to something I am surprised the government caught on to. It is about prevention. There is a provision in the bill of extending the use of the recognizance sections of the Criminal Code, which are already there, for a longer period of time, from one year to two. The bill also extends the discretion that we are giving to the judiciary of conditions the judiciary can impose on people who have been involved historically in gang activity so that we can control them. We can in fact watch their conduct, what they are doing and with whom they are associating, including at the discretion of the judge, giving the judge the authority to require them to wear electronic ankle bracelets so we can track wherever they are.

It can require them to participate in a treatment program. A great deal of the people we deal with, as we have already heard today from other speakers, have mental health problems and addiction problems, so we can actually compel them to take part in treatment programs and tell them to stay within geographic areas. That means keeping them away from our schools and other places where they may be able to get at our youth, to stay in their homes for specified periods of time and to abstain from the consumption of drugs and alcohol, other than according to medical prescriptions.

We are expanding quite significantly the judicial discretion in this regard. It is a very good part of the legislation. It is, again, a part that we have needed for quite some time and it can be used as part of our fight against the street gangs and organized crime more generally.

Those are two reasons why we are doing it.

The third one, and this sounds perhaps a bit sarcastic, is that for those two reasons, there are other provisions in the bill that are really quite questionable in terms of any particular effectiveness they will have. As we heard in one of the questions from the Bloc, the Conservatives appear to be duplicating provisions of the Criminal Code that are already there and that could be used to deal with the type of conduct.

I know I am being a bit sarcastic, but if this will satisfy the Conservative Party and the Conservative government to move on to more meaningful conduct, then we will support the bill for that reason as well.

Let me address a couple of those areas.

We are, in effect, requiring first degree murder charges to be laid when the conduct that results in a death is associated with a criminal gang or terrorism. We have done this as a result of the battle that went on in Quebec against the bikers. We had amended the code in that period of time to deal with the use of explosives, again, both when it was related to organized crime and/or terrorism acts. If explosives were used in those circumstances and a death resulted, it was automatic that a first degree murder charge would be laid.

The significance is that if it is a first degree murder charge and the person is convicted, the sentence is automatically 25 years or life, which is a minimum of 25 years, so it significantly increases the potential penalty the person will receive if convicted. It makes sense to do that in the present set of circumstances of what we are dealing with in terms of organized crime.

It was interesting, in the last couple of days I have sat on both the justice committee and the public safety committee. Both times we were dealing with the issue of gangs and organized crime. What has come out in the course of that, from the RCMP and Border Services, is the number of gangs that have grown in the country just in the last few years. If we go back to 2004-05, the number of street gangs have almost doubled in that period of time.

They do not fit the traditional model. They are not large organizations or the stereotype of organized crime or the biker gangs. These tend to be smaller units, sometimes as few as four or five people, that are committing significant crimes and becoming more and more violent.

It is important to put into context the crime rate in our country when we look at this and why it is so important that we target the gangs. What has happened is the crime rates in Canada have gone down in every category over the last 20 years. The one exception is the crimes being committed by gangs.

Last year and the year before, approximately 20% of all the murders in the country were committed by members of gangs; that is a full one-fifth of all murders. A great deal of murders are being committed with guns that are being smuggled into the country and stolen from lawful users. Those are the kinds of targets we have to go after. Generally, the other provisions of the bill really do not do that.

We have what is colloquially known as the drive-by shooting section. We have now made that a crime. Quite frankly, there are any number of other provisions in the Criminal Code that would deal with that. It is hard to envision a scenario of a drive-by shooting that would not be caught by other provisions of the code, which have quite severe penalties, whether it be murder, manslaughter, second degree murder or criminal negligence. There are all kinds of other provisions that could be used.

To some degree, there is some smoke and mirrors in the bill. We are prepared to support it if we can get it through because of the other provisions around the recognizance and the protection that we would provide to our justice officials, including police officers.

In the last few minutes I will spend my time on what the NDP believes should be the real thrust of the government to deal with the spike in crimes in British Columbia, in 2005 in Toronto and around the end of the last century in Quebec, Montreal in particular. The Quebec situation is probably the best example, but in the studies and analysis I see of what went on in Toronto, the same thing was true there.

It has nothing to do with any legislation we can pass here. It is absolutely essential that we have an integrated process among all the police service agencies; that is the RCMP, the provincial police if there is one in that province, the local municipal police, the Canada Border Services Agency and on down the list.

It is one of the problems we have identified already in B.C. There is not enough coordination going on there. Crime does not pay attention to municipal boundaries. It crosses them on a regular basis and, at times, it crosses them because it may be easier to commit the crime in the other municipality. That integration and coordination is an absolutely essential requirement and it requires the government to look at providing additional resources to the police agencies across the country, particularly in the province of British Columbia.

The Conservatives promised a total of 2,500 police officers and they still have not fully delivered on that. They have not even come close. They led the country to believe they would do that. What they actually intended to do was to dump most of the costs on the provinces. A number of the provinces have been unable to match the federal money, so we still do not have the police officers on the street. The specific agencies that need to be covered, in terms of additional resources, would be part of that integrated strategy.

There was evidence in the public safety committee in the last Parliament that the witness protection program was bifurcated across the country. The federal one is very weak. It is not funded well enough by any means. The provinces and in some cases municipalities have had to take this responsibility on. They do not have the financial resources to do that, only the federal government does. They are still sitting on that work and have not done anything from what I have seen for the last almost two years.

We need to provide additional resources to our prosecutors. I think back to the problem of going after biker gangs in Ontario. We had one prosecutor, an articling student and one secretarial staff member to take on two of the largest defence lawyers and their firms in what would be a monumental case.

What happened was one of the chief prosecutors in the province had to threaten to withdraw services before enough resources were acquired to prosecute that case. There was a conviction in that case. The finding was that the bikers were in fact a criminal gang. That was a major breakthrough in Ontario. B.C. is in a similar situation right now. It needs additional resources.

We need to toughen up our proceeds of crime legislation. It is almost a bit of joke. What has happened again is the provinces, having given up on the federal government, have begun to do this much more effectively than our federal legislation.

I should recognize the work of my colleague from the Bloc on the justice committee. We are studying organized crime. I know this is one of the areas we will look at and come back with recommendations of how we need to strengthen our proceeds of crime legislation. That will go right at the gangs, both the traditional, organized ones and the street gangs.

Finally, we need to increase our prevention programs. It was interesting to listen to the Minister of Justice stand and brag about how much they had done in that regard. The Conservatives only spent 60% of what they had allocated for prevention programs in the 2008-09 budget. My perception is that a number of the programs they chose would not be very effective.

What the Conservatives have done is treat this almost like a business. They want criteria that will fit nicely in a business organization, but has nothing to do with criteria we would need to determine whether the agency is successful in preventing crime and keeping kids in recreational programs and other programs that keep them off the street and away from drug consumption and other crime. Instead, they have set up this very rigid almost meaningless criteria of a business case that these agencies have to show in order to prove they should have money to prevent youth, in particular, from getting involved in crime.

In summary, the NDP will support this at second reading. There are a couple of questions I have on the bill that may require amendments at committee, but, at best, that would be fine-tuning. We expect to get this through committee very quickly and back to the House for third reading and passage and put the provisions that are useful into work. We will do that as rapidly as we can. Then, hopefully, we will see some additional work by the government to get at the real problems we face in the country, in B.C., in particular, give the agencies the resources they need and begin to drive down the rate of crime and in that community, the rate of murder, in particular.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague. I always find him thoughtful, sincere and well-spoken and I do have the utmost personal respect for him.

I gather he can the Prime Minister's mind. That is quite a feat.

I will not bother going into some of the crises that prevented us from getting to some of those things he would like us to get to, which we are getting to now. I will point out that perception for some people equals their personal fact. Other perceptions for other people may be a diametrically opposed fact, but that is okay.

I am pleased to hear the members of the NDP will support it, that they will work with the government to perhaps make the bill better, hopefully, at committee and wherever else they can. That is welcomed.

However, I will ask him to comment on one thing. When he said we did nothing to increase the number of police officers, that is patently untrue. There is some difficulty in doing that. We cannot just go to Wal-Mart, to the police section, and pick police officers off the shelf. We have to recruit them, train them and retain them. The robust economy that we had up until recently has added an extra challenge.

Would he agree that we have made efforts in that area? We are not there yet, we have a ways to go, but perhaps an outcome of the current economy is that it may be easier now to recruit members to the RCMP, members to the municipal police forces, and we will perhaps make more progress toward our goals.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any doubt that the Conservative want the additional police officers. However, I want to be very clear, because I went through those elections, too, in 2004 and 2006. In both cases, the Conservative Party was very clear it would put these additional police officers on the streets of our country and it would increase the number of RCMP officers. I do not think the Conservatives understood what that meant at the time, in terms of the points my colleague just raised, such as the length of time it take to train. We did not have, and we do not yet have a training centre in Saskatchewan that was large enough to take in the additional trainees we needed for the RCMP. It is in the process of completing that.

There are other things the Conservatives could be doing with the RCMP that would also make it attractive for people to join, one of which would be to stabilize where people are sent, as opposed to them and their families being moved all over the country, oftentimes on whims that do not make a lot of sense.

The other thing, though, that really bothered me, and still bothers me, is that throughout those elections, including in 2008, the Conservatives never said that they would spend the money, but it would have to matched by the provincial governments for the additional police officers for municipal and provincial police forces. Any number of provinces said that they could not do it. The negotiations went on for over a year.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for setting the record straight at the beginning of his remarks. I want to ask him an important question for Canadians who might be watching and following this debate. He was, of course, a practising lawyer at the time when the former Progressive Conservative government in Ontario was in power. He will recollect that at that time that administration also ran repeatedly on a strong so-called law and order platform.

Most Canadians now know that there is quite a gulf between the law and order rhetoric of the Conservative Party, both then provincially and now federally, and what has actually been happening here.

Does the member believe that the tone now being set by the government is connected to the fact that the five architects of the Mike Harris revolution are now either front line cabinet ministers or the chief of staff to the Prime Minister?

At the time, Mr. Harris attacked squeegee kids and, in fact, one of his cabinet ministers was caught on cameras saying that the republican tactic is to cause conflict and create the conflict for the media. Could he help us understand if there is a connection here on both sides?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question about the ideological orientation that flows out of the quite right-wing movement in the United States. What is interesting is that it was not copied in England by Mrs. Thatcher to any significant degree, perhaps because of a different structure in government there.

However, that right-wing approach by both the members from the Harris government and the people who are part of the Conservative government now, is very consistent ideologically. There is absolutely no question about that. The current Minister of Finance made comments that putting squeegee kids and panhandlers in jail was the simple and easy way to do it. The ideological approach is just that. It is a simplistic one. It is not in keeping with all of the knowledge that we have now. It ignores the reality that our crime rates have gone down.

One of the reasons that our crime rates spiked in Toronto in our youth was, in part, because of the number of economic cuts that were made to social programs. Those who were kids when the Harris government was in are now teenagers and young adults. Their parents and families did not have the ability to take care of them to a degree. They could not get mental health services for them. One sees that and the same pattern is going on with the government.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my learned colleague made reference to the need for having an enforcement strategy when new laws are tabled and are about to come into force. He spoke to the need for thinking ahead for police officers in training and the need for prosecutors. In my own city of Edmonton, which, sad to say, is now fifth in order of the highest rate of gang-related incidents in Canada, we have a serious problem. It would be good to have stricter penalties but in Alberta we have a severe shortage of prosecutors.

Only a year ago, we had a mass exodus of prosecutors from both the Edmonton and Calgary criminal prosecutors offices, an exodus of a total of 56 experienced criminal prosecutors, leaving junior recruits to prosecute serious offences. Now, we are going to have even more serious offences added.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague could speak to the issue of whether or not it is good to think ahead, when one is tabling a bill, in terms of whether or not we will have the calibre of experts in place to be both investigating and prosecuting these cases.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question in my mind about the need to do that kind of planning. The government does not do it very well at all. We saw that with its bill last time on conditional sentences. That bill would have increased the population in our provincial prisons. It would have been the provinces paying for that, not the federal government.

We were going to increase the population in our provincial prisons by at least 60% across the board. It keeps adding this on. It is not providing anywhere near enough assistance for legal aid on that side and for the prosecutors on the prosecution side. I have already made my comments about the police. There is no question that it is not easy to prosecute these serious crimes and we do need very experienced prosecutors to to do it. However, we clearly do not have enough in the country at this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh for his speech and for his contribution to the justice committee. I also sit on the justice committee and I always enjoy and learn something from my friend. He is a tax lawyer, as I am, and we do not always have the same viewpoints, but I always find his contribution meaningful and insightful.

In the member's preamble, he talked about some delays that this government has allegedly encountered with respect to moving forward on its crime bill and, specifically, he commented about the actions of the justice committee in the 39th Parliament on which, I understand he was a member. I was not as I was not a member of the 39th Parliament.

The hon. member will know that committees are the authors of their own agendas, but it is my understanding that the reason the justice committee in the 39th Parliament did not study the bills that were before Parliament was its absolute insistence, the sub judice rule notwithstanding, to study the then litigation between two members of the House and the Liberal Party of Canada. The justice committee's preoccupation with that piece of litigation was the reason that the committee did not go forward on the justice bills.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. The committee chair ruled on a motion from the Bloc or the Liberals that involved the Cadman affair. It was not in order for that ruling to be before the committee. The member is right about that.

There was then a movement by the opposition parties to overturn the chair's ruling. I made it quite clear that I was not prepared to support his ruling being overturned. Because the votes in that committee were so close, as long as he left the chair, then the committee could not function. That is what happened from early March right through to June of last year, he refused to sit in the chair. He would sometimes call meetings but that is the history of that. It was entirely his responsibility.

Although I supported his interpretation of our responsibilities and our mandate as the justice committee and I was opposed to what the Liberals and the Bloc were doing, I also felt that, based on democracy, if the committee overruled his decision he had to live with that and that he could not use procedural rules to avoid that democratic process.

[Dona Cadman, Conservative, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to express my strong support for Bill C-14. The bill proposes amendments to fortify the Criminal Code's responses to organized crime. Most notably, it takes direct aim at the increasing use of violence committed by organized crime.

This violence has eroded public confidence. This violence is disrupting people's lives and causing them to fear for their safety and, in the most extreme cases, this violence is costing innocent Canadians their lives.

With these amendments, we are sending the right message to Canadians and demonstrating our commitment to improving the safety and security of communities across Canada. As hon. members are now aware, this bill is focused on four separate areas.

I am pleased to hear that members of the opposition have already indicated that they intend to support this legislation. This demonstrates that they are finally appreciating the seriousness of the issue. I am extremely pleased that partisan politics has been put aside to advance this legislation quickly and in the interests of all Canadians.

The murder of another person is the most serious offence in our Criminal Code. Anyone who is found guilty of murder is sentenced to a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment. Those convicted of first degree murder are ineligible for parole for 25 years, while those convicted of second degree murder are ineligible for parole for a minimum of 10 years and up to a maximum of 25 years.

Section 231 of the Criminal Code classifies murder as either first degree or second degree. Some examples of where murder is currently classified as first degree include: murders that are planned and deliberate, such as contract killings; murders that involve specific victims, for example police officers; murders committed during offences of domination, such as sexual assault; and murders committed during the commission of explosive offences for a criminal organization.

Bill C-14 proposes to amend the classification provision pertaining to organized crime by broadening it to make all murders that can be linked to organized crime automatically first degree. The amendments focus on the link to organized crime specifically and the inherent danger that organized crime activity poses to the public. It would do this in two ways.

First, if it can be established that the murder itself was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, then it will be classified as first degree murder even in the absence of planning and deliberation.

Second, if it can be established that the murder occurred while the person was committing or attempting to commit another indictable offence for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in the association of a criminal organization, then it would be classified as first degree even in the absence of planning and deliberation.

These amendments send the right message. Canada is experiencing increasing high levels of gang violence. The rate of gang homicides in Canada has been consistently increasing over the last number of years, unlike the homicide rate, more generally, that has been decreasing.

Innocent people are losing their lives and public safety is suffering. This activity should be strongly condemned and deterred. I believe the proposed changes achieve this in no uncertain terms.

The second proposed area of reform targets another particularly serious and dangerous phenomenon. Drive-by and other similarly reckless shootings have the potential to harm, not only those who are the target of attacks but the public more broadly. These incidents are often indiscriminate and occur in the heat of the moment. They are easy to commit and difficult to prove.

Bill C-14 proposes a new offence to assist police officers investigating this conduct. This offence is aimed at those who would intentionally discharge their firearm with a reckless attitude toward the life or safety of another person. In other words, it does not focus on any specifically intended consequences but rather targets the deliberate disregard for another person's safety.

There is something particularly disturbing to me about a situation in which someone specifically turns their mind to the fact that the shooting of a firearm would put the lives of others at risk, but in spite of this fact goes ahead and shoots anyway. This activity cries out for a strong response, and Bill C-14 delivers it.

This offence would be punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty of four years of imprisonment and a maximum penalty of 14 years of imprisonment.

The minimum penalty goes up to five years of imprisonment if the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. In addition, repeat offenders who have used a prohibited or restricted firearm or committed the offence for organized crime would be subject to a mandatory minimum penalty of seven years of imprisonment.

I strongly support this new legislation and I believe the public supports this kind of approach as well.

The bill also responds to assaults committed against peace and public officers. Two new offences are being proposed, one of assault against peace officers causing bodily harm or involving the use of a weapon, and the other of aggravated assault against peace officers. These offences are punishable on indictment by maximum periods of imprisonment of 10 and 14 years respectively. Both “peace officer” and “public officer” are defined in the Criminal Code, and include persons such as prison guards, wardens, border guards, customs officers and, of course, police officers.

Some might ask why these separate offences are created, when existing provisions address aggravated assault or assault causing bodily harm. The answer is relatively straightforward. Assaults committed against those who are responsible for the maintenance of public peace are an affront to Canada's justice system and the rule of law, and must be specifically denounced.

That is why, in addition to creating stand-alone offences, the 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 assault against police officers, as well as in cases involving the intimidation of justice system participants, such as judges, prosecutors or jurors.

Finally, the bill is focused on strengthening the use of the gang recognizance provision, or what is commonly referred to as a peace bond. A peace bond is a crime prevention tool that is aimed at preventing future offences from occurring. These amendments would clarify that when issuing a peace bond, a judge can impose any condition that he or she feels is necessary to secure the good conduct of the defendant.

The amendments will also extend the length of the order to up to 24 months if the defendant has been previously convicted of a criminal organization offence.

These amendments would also help us address the behaviour of those suspected of engaging in organized crime behaviour and hopefully prevent this activity from occurring in the first place.

I started my speech by noting that I was happy to see that the bill enjoyed wide support. I hope the support will enable us to move the bill through Parliament and into law as quickly as possible. Canadians deserve nothing less.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Surrey North for her speech and for mentioning that we should not play partisan games when it comes to bringing in legislation on crime. She is right, because crime does not have any political boundaries.

I have a question for the hon. member. In the last few days Wally Oppal, Attorney General for British Columbia, and John van Dongen, Solicitor General for British Columbia, came here and made three demands to deal with crime in British Columbia. One was on remand credits. The second one was for updated search and surveillance measures, and the third was on gathering of evidence. I would like to ask the hon. member how she feels about those three measures. Would she be supportive of those three measures to deal with that situation?

[Dona Cadman, Conservative, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is just the first step and the beginning of many, I believe. There are definitely more things that have to be done, but this is the first step. This step is required to control the gangs that are out of control right now in B.C.

Gangs are destroying lives and causing communities a lot of grief. It goes from Vancouver to Montreal. It is all over the place. Gangs are running rampant, and it is time that we stopped them and made them accountable for everything they are doing.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-349, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (body armour).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to amend the Criminal Code in relation to body armour.

The bill would make it an additional offence to use body armour during the commission or attempted commission of an indictable offence. It would also ban those convicted of violent crimes from possessing body armour.

The recent spate of gang violence in the Lower Mainland of B.C., with at least 31 shootings and 15 deaths in the past two months alone, has revealed chilling examples of notorious criminals decked out in body armour, wielding guns and ready to do battle. These are not petty thugs. They are armed and dangerous gangsters who have no regard for their own lives, the lives of police or of innocent bystanders.

I have two sons who are police officers and they have told me of the disturbing situation in which beat cops are put, facing gangsters equipped with body armour that makes them almost invulnerable to patrol officers and with armour piercing weapons that can penetrate regular issue police armour.

The bill is modest in scope and only addresses one but one important small component of the problem. Our communities are crying out for a comprehensive, anti-gang strategy. The government has promised a comprehensive strategy but so far it has failed to deliver.

I call on everyone in the House to support the bill to protect the lives of police officers and the lives of innocent bystanders.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

The House resumed from March 12 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Surrey North. She has already delivered her 10-minute speech, so my speech will be for 10 minutes.

I would also like to thank our Minister of Justice for having made an excellent point today that finally we have arrived at continuing the debate on Bill C-14, an anti-crime measure against organized crime.

I want to remind Canadians of what actually happened today. We are just finishing three hours of debate on a concurrence motion, wasted time when it comes to what we are trying to talk about, which is anti-crime measures. What happened earlier today is that the opposition parties—

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With due respect, when information is incorrect before the House a member should have an opportunity to correct the record.

The concurrence motion is pursuant to the rules of the House and the rights of that member of Parliament.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am not sure that is a point of order.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing that. What I argue is when it came time to vote whether the debate on the concurrence motion should continue for three more hours, the Liberal Party, the Bloc and the NDP all voted in favour to extend it, which delayed further debate on this bill.

What happened is our Minister of Justice stood and shamed the opposition members by drawing to the attention of Canadians that they were delaying the furtherance of this crime bill. Finally, they relented and agreed that Bill C-14 would pass by the end of today. Therefore, I thank our justice minister for having taken that initiative.

I am happy to have the opportunity to speak in strong support of Bill C-14, which proposes changes to the Criminal Code to strengthen our responses to organized crime. Like many Canadians, I have been deeply disturbed by the rash of violence linked to organized crime, and in particular street gangs, and I am pleased that our government has taken this important step towards fortifying our Criminal Code regime in its capacity to respond to such violence.

This bill proposes changes in four areas, and I will briefly discuss each of them in turn. The first area relates to murders. The proposed amendments would make all murders committed in close connection with organized crime automatically first degree, regardless of whether the murder was planned and deliberate.

This bill proposes amendments to section 231 of the Criminal Code to specify that murder is first degree, regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate, when it is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or when it is committed while the offender commits another indictable offence for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization.

Murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and those convicted of first degree murder are ineligible for parole for at least 25 years. In the case of second degree murder, they are ineligible for parole for at least 10 years. Section 231 of the Criminal Code sets out the circumstances in which murder is considered to be first degree. It also states that all murder that is not first degree murder is second degree murder.

I believe these will be very useful provisions, because they will give law enforcement two separate ways to target murders connected to organized crime. These two separate ways cover the broad range of circumstances where murders might occur in the context of organized crime activity.

Bill C-14 also addresses drive-by and other reckless shootings. It proposes to prohibit the intentional discharge of a firearm in circumstances where the shooter turned their mind to the fact that firing the gun could put the life or safety of another person at risk—say in a building, or in an open space—and consciously ran the risk. This offence would be different from the existing, and comparably serious, discharge of a firearm offence in section 244 because it does not require proof that the shooter specifically intended to cause bodily harm to a person. This is something which I understand can be difficult to prove in certain cases and may not be the case at all when the shooter is firing wildly for the purpose of general intimidation. This new offence would be punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty that would increase when the offence is committed for the benefit of a criminal organization or if a prohibited or restricted firearm is used.

I am optimistic that this new offence will assist us in responding to the increasingly brazen violence committed by gangs on the street with firearms.

The third focus of this bill is providing increased protection to peace officers and responding to violence committed against other justice system participants. It does this by creating two new offences to punish assaults against peace officers that cause bodily harm or involve the use of a weapon and aggravated assaults against peace officers. These offences would be punishable, on indictment, by maximum periods of imprisonment of 10 and 14 years, respectively.

To ensure that these cases are adequately punished, the bill would require courts 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, jurors, witnesses and others. This sends the right message and will assist in ensuring that the sentences in these cases properly reflect the serious nature of this conduct.

The fourth area of reform in the bill relates to the strengthening of the gang peace bond provision. These proposed amendments will clarify that when issuing a preventive recognizance order, a judge can impose any conditions that he or she feels are desirable to prevent the person from committing a criminal organization offence.

The amendments would also extend the possible length of the order to up to 24 months if the defendant had been previously convicted of a criminal organization offence. These orders are intended to impose conditions where it is reasonably feared that a person will commit a criminal organization offence, a terrorism offence or the offence of intimidation of justice system participants. A breach of the conditions is a separate offence, subject to prosecution, with a maximum penalty of two years on indictment.

These are important tools because they seek to prevent the commission of organized crime offences before they take place. I understand they can be an extremely useful tool for police in controlling gang activity and these amendments will make them all the more effective.

Of course, strong laws to punish offenders are only part of the picture. We must also be focused on addressing the root causes of how and why persons, particularly young people, become involved with organized crime groups. We know people are targeted by gangs for participation in many crimes, particularly drug trafficking. They may rely upon young persons to commit crimes on their behalf because of the belief that if the young offenders are caught, the justice system will be lenient due to the age of the accused. It is also the way that young people are recruited into the gangs.

Young people, however, are drawn to criminal groups, including street gangs, for a variety of reasons, one of which is to have a sense of belonging for companionship, protection, to be treated with what they see as respect or for money. Criminal Intelligence Service Canada has noted that virtually all street gangs in Canada are comprised of both youth and adult members and associates. Youth gangs also represent distinct entities with approximately 6% of all identified street gangs being comprised of persons under the age of 18.

It is important that we provide young people, particularly vulnerable youth, with alternatives to prevent their involvement in crime. The government has allocated $64 million as part of a national anti-drug strategy to support law enforcement in its efforts to combat the drug trade, and this will be of benefit to our youth.

We all share a commitment to making our communities and the people who live in them safe. Each and every person should feel safe to walk down our streets. This government has made the safety and security of Canadians a priority. This bill is a reflection of that and is a firm but fair response to the threat of organized crime.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be uncharacteristically brief. We do not want any delay in the bill going from this place to committee. As parties, we all stood unanimously and agreed that Bill C-14 should be sent to committee. The Minister of Justice did not seem to comprehend that when he used precious time in the chamber for a diatribe that was irrelevant.

The only delay today on Bill C-14 was that speech, which consisted of reading the bill. We have done that already. Ten minutes or so has been wasted by the member. Let us get the bill out of the House. We are all for it. Does he not agree?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is distorting the facts for Canadians. What happened today was a concurrence motion was put forward by the opposition. If the Liberals had voted against three hours of debate on a useless concurrence motion, it would never have passed.

However, what did the Liberals do? They voted for the concurrence motion. They voted for three hours of debate on anything except crime initiatives. That is my point.

The member is correct that the bill will pass out of the House today to committee for one reason. The Minister of Justice shamed the opposition members by rising on a point of order and identifying to Canadians that they were delaying anti-crime initiatives in the House.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this would be a good time for the hon. member to be speechless. It is a good time for everyone of us to be speechless. If we are speechless, we do not deal with the bill.

I would propose a unanimous motion that all hon. members be speechless.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the legislation needs to move as quickly as possible. I am simply pointing out the unfortunate events that caused a three hour delay.

I have been waiting at least a week to give my speech. It has continually been moved by opposition delaying tactics. Today we have them on board, thanks to our justice minister and his fine work. I thank the opposition for that. I only regret the loss of three hours on a concurrence motion that the opposition supported.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague across the way, the time to have been speechless so we could get to justice issues was two hours ago, not right now.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was in the House today. He brings up an excellent point. The time to be speechless was two hours ago.

The time to speak was with voting. We speak loudest as MPs when we stand and vote. The opposition members stood and voted for a three hour delay on moving ahead this important legislation. Shame on them. However, I do thank them. They sided with us at the end because our justice minister pointed out their faults.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should never mistake this. We never side with the government and its misconstruing of what should happen in our country. We side with the Canadian people.

Today it was our House leader who stood up. It was not the government members. They were all glued to their seats and bubbling over with outrage. Our member for Wascana stood and said “unanimous consent”.

Therefore, the facts for the Canadian public are that the bill is moving as quickly as it can. At the end of the day it will go to committee, thanks to the Liberal Party of Canada and not thanks to the sleepy and somewhat separated from reality government of the day.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to point out the error by the member. I was in the House when he was talking, just before I stood to speak. The member will say that he supports veterans who serve their country, defending their country for liberty and freedom. Today he is saying that he supports other people who choose not to support their country, defending liberty and freedom. He feels Canada should be a safe haven. He is giving contradictory messages.

My point is he is also giving contradictory messages on crime. The opposition members will stand and say that they support crime, but when it comes time to vote, they delay and obstruct. That is exactly what happened today.

I see the Minister of Justice here, and I thank him for his support this morning.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the last few minutes did not make a very eloquent contribution to the current debate. The problem is settled and I would have liked the Minister of Justice to hear this. I hope that he will listen to what I am going to say. My colleagues opposite are not very knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure. That is the least I can say given these circumstances, so as not to offend them even more.

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to greet you. I knew you as Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. This is the first time that I have risen to speak in this chamber when you were presiding over the deliberations. I want to congratulate you on your appointment to the position of Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole and thank you for the work you did as Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I hope, and am in fact convinced, that the work you are doing here now will also be very productive, especially during the kind of debate we are having today.

We are debating Bill C-14. Our Conservative friends made this a top priority in the fight against organized crime, something they seem to think has only appeared in the last few years. Unfortunately, I will have to give them a history lesson. Memory is well known as that faculty which forgets, and the Conservatives probably have the shortest memory on record. We should remember that the Bloc Québécois, since 1994—not just for the past two weeks—has been informing this House of the fact that there is a serious problem with organized crime and that steps need to be taken. Several were taken thanks to our efforts.

In spite of what the Conservatives will be saying, if not for the Bloc Québécois, thousand dollar bills would still be in circulation. The Bloc Québécois forced the government to make that change. I do not want to attack the Conservatives or the Liberals, but the fact is that governments finally understood that thousand dollar bills were causing an increase in organized crime and in money laundering. I can talk about this not because I have had several thousand dollar bills in my possession, but because before my election in 2004, I was a criminal lawyer for 30 years. I practised criminal law for the defence and I am very familiar with the organized crime file.

Whether the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles likes it or not, the measures put in place are the result of repeated requests by the Bloc Québécois. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, who sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as parliamentary secretary, does not seem to have known about this before 2000. We have known about it since 1990. It seems to me that he lives in Quebec, but he did not know about it either. It took some time for them to recognize the existence of organized crime. Now everyone knows who the Hells Angels are. We know a little about how its members are recruited and how we can combat these organized gangs, whether the Bandidos or the Hells Angels. It is easier for us, and I am choosing my words carefully, to understand how these organizations work.

However, we are facing a new phenomenon. Whether my Conservative friends, including the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, admit it or not, street gangs have existed for at least five or six years now. They have never understood that. For them, street gangs are the same as the Hells Angels. That is not the case. Streets gangs are a new phenomenon, and a growing concern. Whether in Vancouver, Toronto, in the east end of Montreal, even in Halifax and many other places in Canada, idleness is a phenomenon that is triggering senseless crimes. That is what they really are: senseless crimes.

First there was the mafia—and we need not look back at the godfather—with people killing each other. We could understand, follow and watch how it worked, but street gangs are completely different.

Street gangs might decide that tonight, they are going to shoot at anyone wearing black. Street gangs operate differently. They are radically changing how we see and deal with crime.

I want to say right away that we will support Bill C-14, despite its flaws. We will ask that it be studied in committee. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, on which I also sit, has already begun looking at organized crime. We will take a very close look at the new phenomena around organized crime as we study Bill C-14.

The bill is important, because it redefines murder. I feel that part should be clarified, such as the fact that a contract killing is not an ordinary murder. I am sorry, I am weighing my words and that is not easy, but murder is murder. Murder itself is bad enough. But contract killings, gratuitous murders, murders to intimidate and murders to send a message are a new and unacceptable phenomenon, and I think it is time we took action.

These new definitions in subsection 231(6.01) will be important, because they will go further. That is the purpose of the bill: to make murder committed for the benefit of or at the direction of a criminal organization first degree murder.

Let us think back to what used to happen. It has not been so very long since I was a criminal defence lawyer. We made deals and tried to find solutions so that an individual got off. We said a killing was murder, but that it could be considered second degree murder because it was not premeditated. That will no longer be possible. We are going to close that door, which allowed a person to put a contract out on someone, I am sorry to put it that way. I do not like that sort of language either, but I use it and we all know what it means.

We are finally going to close that door in the Criminal Code. That will put an end to the dilemma around criminal organizations and the people associated with them. We will at least close that door. The same thing will hold true for murders committed during an attempt to commit an indictable offence, and we will have a chance to look closely at that. That will target criminal gangs. We will be able to deal with criminal gangs and hit them with heavier penalties.

Now here is where I must plug my message. The Conservatives do not yet understand this. They really do not understand this and, once again, Bill C-14 must be looked at carefully, because minimum prison sentences will not solve the problem of crime. I want to repeat this, so it can be properly translated into English and so they understand clearly. Imposing minimum prison sentences will not reduce crime. That is exactly what the Americans did and crime rates skyrocketed. Convicted offenders must serve their prison sentences.

As someone I know has said, the problem is not when offenders go to prison; it is when they come out. They get out too quickly. The problem is that the Conservatives are telling themselves and everyone has said that this does not make sense. Someone can be sentenced to 18 months, but get out of prison in two months. That is unacceptable. The Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice need to have a chat. As far as I know, they are in the same political party. But they need to talk to each other, because something must be done about the parole system.

I know a bill is to be introduced tomorrow. We will have to wait and see what is in that bill. We think it is important to eliminate the two-for-one provision. We know what this means, but we can debate that another time.

For the time being, the Conservatives must realize that we need to do something about parole to ensure that an accused sentenced after a fair trial serves his sentence, does not get any goodies and does not get out earlier because of good behaviour.

I have some examples. That is the problem with Bill C-14. It calls for a minimum prison term of four years. There would still be plea bargaining to reduce the sentence and change the charges. That is not the right solution. We will examine it in committee; it is an interesting bill in that regard. We will see how we can ensure that the sentences handed down—and it is not a question of giving the judges a set of directives—are served.

There are many other amendments in the bill. There are some minor, but interesting, changes. We will definitely be targeting organized crime as well as street gangs. We will probably have to rethink the interception of communications because, with respect to organized crime, there has been no change in the past 10 to 15 years in ways of intercepting communications. Because of the Internet and all the changes in that time, police have asked for amendments.

I do not wish to speak much longer, but Bill C-14 is truly interesting. The light has gone on for the government, but it still has a long way to go before understanding that crime will not be reduced when offenders enter jail or by imposing minimum mandatory sentences, but rather by having offenders serve the sentences handed down. That is the important point. However, this will probably be the subject of another debate.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his speech and for his work on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I have one simple question to ask him. It seems that there is a lot of confusion on the other side. They seem to think that their actions resulted in the parties on this side deciding to proceed with Bill C-14. Does the hon. member share the opinion that it was our side, not the government, that decided together to send the bill to committee as quickly as possible?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I am pleased to remind hon. members opposite that they are in a minority government. They have to understand that. It would at least be a step in the right direction. Second, when you are in a minority government, you try to work with the opposition parties to move matters forward. Bill C-14 is the best example.

If the government knew what common sense was, it would, at 9:00 a.m. this morning, have sat down with the opposition parties and asked them if they were in agreement. We are in agreement that the bill should be sent to committee. This is why debate in this House is being limited. The government must understand. It is a minority government and it is having a little difficulty understanding that.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague not to anticipate the future too much, even if there is a dash of clairvoyance in all of this. I want to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech and tell him how much—and I do so on behalf of all of the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—we appreciate his presence at the committee. Not only does he have theoretical expertise on the Criminal Code, but he also has a very practical knowledge of it, since he was himself a sought-after criminal lawyer for more than two decades.

Is it not unfair to see the Minister of Justice completely lose all personal dignity and rise to have a temper tantrum, which could put him in the same league as young offenders and cause the loss of all decorum in this House? Would we not be remiss in not reminding people that it was this government that prorogued this House? If we had had more time, we could have had analyses of the bills. It is irresponsible to attack the opposition, when it was the government that prorogued the work of this Parliament not so very long ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the member for Hochelaga, an extraordinary leader at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, gifted with a composure that will undoubtedly serve him well in his future endeavours. Personally, I would be very disappointed to lose him, should he go.

That being said, I think that there is a blatant lack of communication within the Conservative Party. If the Minister of Justice, rather than behaving in this way—my colleague is perfectly right—had spoken to his whip, things would not have come to this pass and this little crisis, which lasted 10 or 15 minutes, would have been averted. This does not reflect well on the image of a minister of justice.

That said, it is important that we be given the proposals ahead of time, and that we also move forward with Bill C-14, which will be referred to committee within a few minutes.

[Dawn Black, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East.

New Democrats are supporting this bill but we are asking the government to do more to provide a comprehensive federal anti-gang strategy. Although we are supporting this bill, we are saying very clearly that this bill alone is not a strategy and it is not enough to combat gangs.

A comprehensive strategy must include, not only tougher sentences, but more police officers on the street, improved witness protection, tougher laws to tackle the proceeds of crime, modernizing our laws that cover surveillance and evidence-gathering and a comprehensive plan for prevention to ensure that our kids are not attracted to the gang culture and that they stay away from joining gangs in the first place.

In the last two months alone, there have been at least 31 shootings in the metro Vancouver region and 15 people have been killed. These are not petty thugs. These are notorious criminals, decked out in body armour and emboldened with a sense of invincibility, who are wielding guns and ready to do battle.

We need strong and effective action from all three levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal. Stiffer penalties for those involved in gangs are certainly appropriate but it is not a sufficient response to this problem.

The metro Vancouver region has one of the lowest police to population ratios in the country, but what have the Conservatives done as an answer to this desperate need for investment in policing services? They have torn up contracts with the RCMP, have rolled back their wages and have made worse an already difficult recruitment and retention situation.

The Conservative approach to gang violence has been to latch on to the most simplistic, headline grabbing component of the action we need, which is tougher sentences.

New Democrats have already said that we support tougher sentences for gang violence but tougher sentences will not mean much if we do not get convictions. Tougher sentences will be ineffective unless they are part of a comprehensive strategy because tough sentences alone do very little to divert kids away from gangs. They need to be coupled with diversionary programs and activities, things that give young people alternatives to the gang lifestyle.

A comprehensive anti-gang strategy requires substantial investment to bring hope to communities that are hurting. These efforts need to be well thought out, carefully implemented and monitored to see what is working and what is not. Diverting kids from gangs is far from an exact science. This is what is lacking from the Conservative government that says that it is tough on crime but is either unwilling or unable to come up with the creative kinds of ideas that are necessary to solve the problem.

One place that we can look to for an example of a program to divert youth away from gangs is in the U.S. The program is called GREAT, which stands for gang resistance education and training. This program sees police officers visit elementary and middle school classrooms, teaching life skills to help kids avoid delinquent behaviour and violence, and encouraging the building of positive relationships between law enforcement, parents, children and the whole community. It has proven to be effective. It has proven to give students a more negative view of gangs and a more positive view of law enforcement. This program operates right across the country, thanks to funding from the U.S. federal government. It sees programs like this as an investment in our children and in healthy and safe communities.

I urge the government to make a similar substantial investment in our children in programs to keep them out of gangs. Tougher sentences are meaningless when our police departments and our prosecutors do not have the resources needed to ensure that guilty gang members are brought to justice and convicted. At both the federal and provincial levels, we have seen governments that profess to be tough on crime and howl with indignation when they see criminals walk free through the gaping cracks in our criminal justice system, and yet they have systematically cut our police and our prosecutors.

Again I draw attention to the Conservative government shredding a negotiated contract with the RCMP. This is but one example. It is an absolute disgrace and particularly shameful coming from a government that claims to be tough on crime when we need to be going in exactly the opposite direction. We need greater investments in putting police officers on the ground because they are the front line in stopping gang violence.

In my own riding, the city of Coquitlam has one of the lowest police to population ratios in the entire country. The Conservative Party made promises in the 2004 and 2006 elections to ensure there would be 2,500 more police officers in municipal departments, a still unfulfilled promise.

A model for the integrated approach to policing and prosecution that is needed to tackle gang violence can be found in the city of Toronto's anti-guns and gangs task force. The task force has a dedicated staff of police officers, crown prosecutors, victim and witness support workers, probation and parole officers. The task force is headquartered in a state of the art operations centre, which allows for the highly coordinated investigations and prosecutions needed to combat gang violence.

If the government were really serious about tackling gang violence, it would provide funding to assist provincial governments in setting up similar task forces in major cities across the country.

Another area where the police need the support of the federal government is to pass legislation to modernize the laws around surveillance and wiretapping. These laws were written before the Internet age and wireless technology, which has changed society. Criminal organizations are operating and conducting business with all of this technology, cell phones, BlackBerries and online, and they know the police are unable to combat that. Criminals are taking advantage of the most cutting edge technology and we must give our justice system the same kinds of legislative tools to combat them.

I want to touch briefly on the proceeds of crime. I share the anger of citizens in my communities who have been terrorized by gang violence, only to see gang members profiteering freely from dangerous and violent activities. Police and prosecutors need to be able to go after the luxury cars and the million dollar homes that upper echelon gang members flaunt in our communities. Otherwise, how can we truly tell our children that crime does not pay?

We propose that the proceeds of crime recovered by government should be reinvested in communities that have been victimized by gang violence. I can think of nothing more appropriate than auctioning off the possessions of gangsters to fund school programs or community centres.

I know all members of the House want to see an end to this kind of violence. I join with my New Democrat colleagues in calling upon the Conservative government to move further and faster to put forward a comprehensive strategy to end gang violence. Every day that goes by that the government does not have a strategy to end gang violence is another day wasted. That is a shameful reality. Communities are looking to the government for hope and action but so far they have been sadly disappointed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I must interrupt at this point. The member will have two minutes remaining in her speech when we return to this matter.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-14, although I will say that if the Conservative government and the Liberals had their way, I do not think I would be speaking. I find it quite outrageous that we have had one speaker from the NDP on Bill C-14, yet we have been accused of delaying the bill and of trying to drag it out.

This afternoon we heard the Conservative government accuse the opposition of trying to delay these proceedings by moving a concurrence motion on a committee report. I have an overall concern that somehow the Conservatives have this incredible belief that the world revolves around the Criminal Code, that it revolves just around their pieces of legislation, that there is no other business in the House. The debate that took place this morning on the war resisters is a very important piece of public business. It deserved to be debated in the House.

The fact that we have two or three speakers on a bill is not about trying to delay the bill. It is about doing due diligence to a very important crime bill and being able to rise in this House to speak on the record about a particular bill. I am outraged at the pressure tactics and the antics that have gone on here to prevent members from speaking in the House. This is not about delay. It is about dealing with legislation and being able to look at it and examine it in a reasonable way. That is what we are here to do. It is what we were elected to do and I intend to do just that.

I am a member from Vancouver and like so many others in our city and in metro Vancouver, I have been quite horrified by the terrifying gun violence and the shootings that have taken place. There have been something like 38 shootings and 17 deaths in recent weeks. I have certainly heard from my constituents via emails and phone calls and I have spoken to people on the street. People are deeply concerned by the level of violence, the guns that are being displayed and the gang warfare that is going on. I certainly want to add my voice that we want to work in a way that we build strong and healthy communities. To see these acts of violence in local communities, people running up and down back alleys shooting, and people being caught in the crossfire is truly terrifying for the people I have heard from. I am sure that many others who did not send an email or make a phone call nevertheless feel the terror and know what it means to worry about going outside or taking their kids to school.

I believe very strongly that no one should have to live in fear in their home and their community. The situation is very serious in the city of Vancouver and metro Vancouver generally. I would note that even the provincial attorney general and the provincial solicitor general noted in a letter that they sent to each of us that of the over 200 incidents of reported shots fired in the Vancouver region in 2008, the vast majority are a direct result of organized crime's drug trade. That came from the provincial officials.

My colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam and our justice critic, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, have laid out very well that we support this bill and we support the very limited parameters it has to offer extended protection to officers and justice officials and the fact that the bill contains provisions that will extend the use of recognizance and allow some greater participation in treatment programs. It includes the requirement that a first degree murder charge would be laid when the conduct that results in a death is associated with a criminal gang or terrorism and the drive-by shooting aspect.

While we recognize those elements of the bill, we do see them as being very limited. As New Democrats we have called for over and over again and proposed to the government that we need an overall coordinated strategy focused on gangs and organized crime. One of the strategies that we need but we have not yet seen from the government is leadership around recognizing that more resources are required for prosecution and enforcement.

As my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, pointed out, metro Vancouver has one of the lowest ratios of police officers to population in all of Canada. We know the government failed on its commitment to bring in 2,500 more police officers on the streets of our communities.

There is a huge credibility gap when it comes to dealing with the bill. On the one hand, the government is so caught up in the optics of calling for tougher laws. On the other, it refuses to bring in the broader strategies that will deal with crime prevention in our communities, or provide the kinds of resources needed for prosecution and enforcement.

We have also called for more and better prevention programs to divert youth at risk. Again, over the years promises were made to this effect by the Conservative government, but we have yet to see any effective mechanism delivered and used in local communities to divert youth at risk.

While NDP members support the bill in the very limits it places, and we will look at it closely in committee, we are very disappointed and mindful of the fact that the government has failed to deliver on the broader range of strategies needed.

While we need to be mindful that we should take immediate action to prevent gun violence and shootings in our streets, we also cannot ignore the much bigger question about drug laws and prohibition and the impact those have on what goes on in metro Vancouver right now.

I will briefly reference a very good article that was written by Neil Boyd, who is a very well-known criminologist at Simon Fraser University. He recently wrote in the Globe and Mail:

The greatest irony of our current reality is that individuals are now being shot to death over the trade in cannabis, but it is almost impossible to die from consumption of the drug itself.

In the full article he has brought together very well the arguments to show that, yes, we can bring in tougher provisions in laws and changes to the Criminal Code, but unless we address the much bigger issue of the drug laws themselves, then we are just fooling ourselves.

This is really the agenda of the Conservative government. It is about playing the politics of fear, about fooling people and trying to appease them. By changing the Criminal Code, it will change what goes on in our local communities when it comes to gangs, shootings, violence and the use of guns.

We need some changes, but unless we tackle that larger question, we will be leaving those communities in a state of fear and chaos. That is simply very wrong.

Since being elected in 1997, I have been a very strong advocate for taking on this issue and recognizing that if we rely solely on an enforcement regime, particularly when it comes to gangs, it is not going to be a deterrent. Again, Neil Boyd points out in his article if that if one can place one's self in a gang member's shoes and try to understand what is going on, the idea that there are going to be tougher laws is not necessarily a deterrent at all.

We must recognize what is going on in terms of drug laws and how it is fuelling a huge organized crime black market. The NDP is saying that this will continue and that no changes will happen.

I believe it is time for us to look at new policies, a broader strategy for prevention and to ensure there are programs that can divert youth from gangs and that we provide realistic education to young people. We should educate the public about the question of drugs and substance use.

If we do that and tackle this question of drug law reform, let us at least have an honest debate about prohibition and its impact, similar to what we saw in the 1930s. Then maybe we will be doing something honest. We will be putting in front of people the real question. I am concerned about that in the ongoing debates.

I support and the other members of the NDP support the bill. However, what I find so offensive is the attitude of the Conservative government. It has displayed such a narrow-mindedness about this question. It is such a politically focused and motivated agenda that at the end of the day will not change the kind of reality we see in metro Vancouver.

Even if the Conservatives lived up to their promise of more officers, that would at least make our communities stronger and healthier.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I hope you would find unanimous consent for the following: That in the opinion of the House each year the vernal equinox, the first day of spring, should be designated as Nowruz Day.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. member for Richmond Hill have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a comment and ask a question on the comments the hon. member and the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam made with respect to police forces, in particular the RCMP.

First, I want to point out that this government brought in pay for recruits. It was this government that increased service pay for the RCMP. It was this government that set aside $161 million to recruit 1,000 RCMP officers, which is a work in progress. We just cannot go down to Wal-Mart and pick these guys off the shelf. We also allocated money for 2,500 new municipal police officers, which again is a work in progress. We are passing laws to give the justice system more tools to help the RCMP and other police forces do their jobs.

The member for New Westminster—Coquitlam made a statement that is patently false. She said that we rolled back the RCMP wages. That is absolutely false. She knows it. She should withdraw that. What we have done is restrict their pay increase to match the pay increases for other members of the public service.

My question for the hon. member is related to the bill we are debating right now and it goes to gangs and gang members and how those people are treated. How does she anticipate the NDP responding to the bill, which will be proposed shortly, to take away the two-for-one or three-for-one credit that is currently in vogue?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, the member is entirely incorrect. The fact is the government rolled back a negotiated, agreed upon collective agreement. We have laws in our country where we have free collective bargaining. The government has rolled back the time clock and labour rights that have affected the RCMP. We find that reprehensible.

The Conservatives also made a promise to put 2,500 more officers on the street. This is a promise on which they have yet to deliver.

After a while, year after year of hearing these kinds of promises, is it any wonder that people become very cynical in what they hear from the Conservative government and the fact that they do not trust the Conservatives any more?

The bill he referred to in his question has not yet come to the House. We are debating Bill C-14. We will be debating Bill C-15 next. If the member wants to know our position on a bill that has yet to come into the House, maybe he should stick around and he can hear that debate. We would be happy to participate in it.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to clarify a couple of points.

The government now needs two parliamentary secretaries for justice. However, one of them said in committee the other day that these bills would not be the be-all and the end-all, that they were not the cure, that other things were needed. Even the Conservatives see that.

First, I know the hon. member has an urban background, which would lead her to know that much more is needed in the fight against crime and gang violence. What are those items?

Second, it was this side of the House that proposed that Bill C-14 leave this place and go to committee, not the government side. Is that not true?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party actually proposed that this bill and Bill C-15 go through all stages in the House and committee with no debate whatsoever. We found that quite incredulous. They were even trying to one-up the government on this one.

I find it quite outrageous that there is some kind of competition going on as to who can march this legislation forward more quickly, without any debate. These changes in the law are very serious. They warrant debate, both in the House and in committee.

On the question of gangs alone, there are many different perspectives out there in terms of what causes gangs, how they are manifested and whether changes in the law will be any kind of deterrent. There are real experts out there who have studied this kind of thing.

Does the Conservative government want to hear from those people? I do not believe so. Do the Liberals want to hear from those people? They wanted to rush it through committee.

We have an interest in hearing what some of those perspectives are and have genuine due diligence in dealing with this legislation. We think it is very important. We have signified our support for it. We are willing to have it go to committee. In fact, we knew all along that the bill would end today and go to committee.

All the theatrics we saw earlier today from the Minister of Justice were just that, theatrics, trying to score political points. It was going to committee anyway.

I think everybody should take it down a notch and get back to our real job, which is debating the legislation, making intelligent debate and ensuring there is a proper process at committee as well.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate today.

I want to add to what my colleague from Vancouver East was just saying about all the brouhaha about getting the bill through the House today. There was absolutely no doubt that we would finish debate on Bill C-14 today and get it to committee by the end of the day. Therefore, the motion proposed by the Liberals this morning was meaningless because we were on that track already.

We New Democrats in this corner of the House had agreed to the number of speakers we were putting up and we have not expanded that list by one person for some time now. This was, as the member said, a lot of theatrics over nothing today, unfortunately. The reality is that even after all the brouhaha, that somehow there was an attempt to delay consideration of Bill C-14, the Conservatives themselves put up more speakers. It is unbelievable.

I seconded the concurrence motion this morning and I make no apology for that. That was an important piece of business. We need to hold the government accountable for its lack of respect for the decisions of the House, especially in a minority Parliament. When we had to revisit an important question of war resisters and their welcome in Canada, a motion that was passed by the last Parliament and the government refused to act on it, I make no apology for asking the House to revisit that important issue today.

With regard to the legislation before us, which is purported to be an attempt to deal with gang violence in Canada, I agree that it does take some steps that will go toward that. However, I do not want to oversell this legislation. It is important to people in my constituency and to people all over greater Vancouver where we have seen a terrible outbreak of gang violence, where 38 people have been shot and at least 17 people have died as a result of that violence in the last few months. That is unacceptable in our community.

We want to ensure that everyone in our community feels safe and feels that they can go about their daily business feeling secure. There have been times in recent weeks when that has not been the case, and that is not acceptable. We need to put our efforts, as members of Parliament and as MLAs in British Columbia, toward addressing and solving that situation.

Bill C-14 is a limited attempt to do that. I want to make it very clear that New Democrats support this legislation. I support this legislation and will be voting for it.

What exactly does Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants) do? It has three key provisions. The first one is to add to the sentencing provisions for murder so that any murder committed in connection with a criminal organization is a first degree murder, regardless of whether it is planned and deliberate.

The second key provision is 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.

The third provision is to extend the duration of a recognizance 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 treatment programs and a requirement to remain in a specific geographic area.

Those are the three provisions in the legislation but they are limited in the sense that this is not an extensive bill by any stretch of the imagination. It adds a new offence of what we commonly call a drive-by shooting, a specific offence under the Criminal Code. That is not to say that any crimes associated with that particular activity were not already illegal and already punishable by important penalties in our Criminal Code. This just nominally creates a specific crime. It does add the crime of first degree murder to any murder associated with gang activity, and that is a significant one.

The reality is that those are measures that the New Democratic Party proposed in our campaign platform in the 2008 federal election where we clearly said that two of the measures to combat gang violence that were required were that first degree murder charges should be ensured for gang related homicides, which is exactly what this legislation does. We also called to make drive-by shootings and firing at a building indictable offences. These measures are ones that New Democrats promoted during the last federal election and we are glad to have the opportunity to debate them and support these proposals from the government today in the House of Commons.

My colleagues from metro Vancouver who have already spoken in this debate, the members for Vancouver East, Burnaby—New Westminster, Vancouver Kingsway and the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, all agree that these are important measures to take at this time. We hope they will make a contribution to dealing with the problems that the greater Vancouver area has been seeing in recent weeks.

On the one hand, where we agree that these changes to the Criminal Code with regard to drive-by shootings and a first degree term for murder committed as part of a gang activity are important provisions, I doubt that these measures will strike terror in the hearts of gang members. I doubt that there have been any memos circulating among the gangs to say that they had better back off now because these new provisions are coming.

We know that these kinds of things do not act as a deterrent but that does not mean that we should not be doing them. We should be ensuring that these crimes are punishable for the serious crimes that they are. However, we should not kid ourselves that these will act as a deterrent to involvement in criminal gangs or in gang violence.

The other specific piece of this legislation that we think is important is the change to the recognizance provisions. We need to protect the people who work in our justice system. We need to protect our police officers. This extension of recognizance provisions from one to two years is an important step to take.

We are glad as well that this bill would improve judicial discretion. It is not often that we see the Conservatives taking a measure that allows judges to undertake discretion in the important work that they do. This legislation would do that by allowing things, such as treatment, to be added to the provisions of a recognizance. We think that is an important step to be taking.

We know that a judge who has followed the case, worked the case thoroughly and has paid attention to what has gone on in that proceeding is often in a very good position to understand what steps need to be taken. We applaud the improvement of judicial discretion in that case.

We want to be careful, however, because the imposition of treatment is often not the best way to accomplish the goals of treatment. Even though this is allowed in the legislation, we flag that it may be problematic. I am sure most judges who are considering that will be well aware of the problems associated with requiring treatment programs.

These are important improvements. They are limited. I do not think we should oversell their effect or their importance but they are important steps to take. As I say, we are pleased to be supporting them.

We need to be doing a whole bunch of other things. With regard to the situation in Vancouver, there is no doubt that we should have more police working in our communities. We believe that the promise of 2,500 extra police officers across the country should have been delivered on. We are looking forward to that day when those men and women are available to do that important work.

We also know that in metro Vancouver there is an important issue of the coordination of police efforts. We do not have a regional police force in Vancouver. We have a number of municipal forces. We have the RCMP serving some communities. The need for better communication and coordination among these different forces working on this important issue is an issue that has been flagged by many of those same people working on these matters. We want to ensure the government pays attention to providing those kinds of resources.

We are also very concerned that the government has chosen to roll back the negotiated wage increase for RCMP officers in the last budget. We do not believe that is an appropriate action given the important work that these men and women do in our communities. We also do not believe that it is appropriate to roll back a negotiated contract in that fashion. This is a backward step. It does not help our efforts to combat crime and it does not recognize the important services that those men and women of the RCMP provide in our communities and in communities like Burnaby.

It is also clear that we need increased support for prosecution services. Unbelievably, in the British Columbia budget, the provincial government cut back on its prosecution services. We know that successful prosecution will improve our criminal justice system and that if prosecutors have a smaller caseload they will do a better job and not make last minute decisions. They will be able to do the kind of research they need to do to be more successful and make appropriate decisions on all the processes around successfully prosecuting a criminal case. We hope the government will address the whole issue of support for prosecution at some point.

The need to strengthen the witness protection program is another area that has come up time and again in greater Vancouver. People who have witnessed gang crimes have told us about their fears of coming forward in a public way to help the police find and prosecute those criminals. They are fearful of what might be in store for them should they go public in that way. We need to ensure the flaws of our witness protection system are addressed. The New Democratic Party called for that again as part of our last election platform in the 2008 campaign.

We also believe that prevention is key to any successful criminal justice policy platform and package. We often hear this described as programs for youth at risk, which is important, but I do not want to leave the impression that we somehow believe it is youth who are responsible for the kind of crime we are seeing in metro Vancouver right now. Youth gangs are not causing these problems. Adults are causing these problems.

However, we do need to ensure our youth are given all the opportunities so that involvement in criminal activity is not seen as a viable option for them, that they have other outlets for their creativity and energy and that those are provided and well-financed by our communities. We need to pay more attention to that.

I am sorry that we never have the chance to discuss the importance of moving to restorative justice programs. As a formal part of our criminal justice system, we know that restorative justice that involves people accused of a crime, the victims of those crimes and people from the community is an effective way of building relationships and ensuring that punishment and restitution happen. However, we need to maintain relationships while that is going on in the community. We need to see more of that. We need to move in that direction because it is an effective way of ensuring that relationships are built and maintained which will go to building a community rather people holding grudges and not having the contact with each other, which they will eventually have again anyway.

For many years in my community, I have seen groups of citizens, who are interested in establishing these kinds of programs, struggling and fighting only to be thwarted in their attempts to see the programs funded and established as a key feature of our criminal justice system. There is no excuse for that. We know it works in other jurisdictions. In fact, we have seen it work here in our own communities.

I was part of it myself in a restorative justice program with an aboriginal offender who spray-painted the side of my house. I was very impressed with the way that unfolded. I was impressed with the leadership of the elders from the community who took part in that process, the social workers and court officials who were part of that process and of the young man and his family who were involved. If I were to bump into that young man on the street, I would be able to say hello to him instead of being fearful of him and he would be able to say hello to me even though he caused damage to my property in the past. That is an incredibly successful outcome and one that we should be celebrating and ensuring happens more often in our communities.

We also need to address the issue of guns in our communities. We know that handguns are too readily available and are too often used in these kinds of gang-related crimes. We also know that too many guns come across the border from the United States. I hope that we are negotiating with the Americans on the porous borders with regard to handguns. This is a significant issue of border control and safety for Canadians.

We often hear Americans' concerns about our border, but it is time that we as Canadians highlighted what our concerns are with the American-Canadian border, and the trafficking of guns across that border has to be high on our list. We know that far too many of the handguns used in crime in Canada come from south of the border, and we need to make sure that is addressed in our bilateral relationship with the United States.

We also need better legislation around proceeds of crime. We need to ensure that the proceeds of crime are directed back into our communities to assist in the development of our communities.

I am glad the member for Vancouver East talked about the whole issue of drug crime and drug policy in Canada, because I also believe that is fundamental to making any significant progress on these issues. We know that the profitability of drugs is the key issue behind gang activity. If drugs were not so profitable, there would not be so many people interested in pursuing it. There would not be the kinds of violent conflicts that erupt between these organizations because so much money is at stake and being made illegally in the drug trade.

It is time we learned some lessons from the past. It is not rocket science. We have an excellent example from the days of alcohol prohibition in the United States. There were exactly these kinds of criminal activities, lack of security in communities, gang wars, drive-by shootings, shootings between gangs on the streets, family dislocation, illegal stills in basements that caused problems for neighbours and fires in homes, all of the same kinds of issues that we see as a result of the drug trade currently in our society.

I am of the opinion that drug prohibition is not doing us any favours when it comes to addressing the needs and safety of our communities. We should learn from the example of the past. The parallel is exact and direct between the time of alcohol prohibition and our current drug prohibition regimes, both here and in the United States. It is time that we listened to those advocates, some even in law enforcement, who are saying it is time we reviewed our commitment to drug prohibition and sought other directions.

Some progress has been made in that respect with the adoption of the four pillars approach. It has been very important to the city of Vancouver, to metro Vancouver and my community of Burnaby. The four pillars of harm reduction, enforcement, prevention and treatment have been part of dealing with questions of drug use, addiction and criminal activity surrounding the drug trade in our communities.

We know that protecting people's lives and health with harm reduction is a crucial component of dealing with issues that stem from the use of drugs and the drug trade.

We have already talked about the importance of having police on the streets and having coordination between police officers, police detachments and different police forces. We know the importance of that enforcement activity. We know the importance of having good laws so that we can prosecute those who engage in related crimes.

We also know, as another pillar of the program, the importance of prevention. We know that people need to understand the impact of drug use on themselves, their communities and their families. We need to dedicate resources in order to prevent people from becoming involved in the use of drugs and the problems it will cause for them, their families and their communities.

We also need to ensure that there is more treatment available for those who decide they want to deal with their addictions. I think it is a tragedy that now when people decide they want treatment, often it is not available and they cannot get it when they make that decision. We know that is the absolutely crucial moment. When people decide they are ready for treatment, they must get into treatment at that moment. If they put it off, they backslide and are into the same cycle again.

We also know that when people finish treatment, there have to be services, supports and appropriate housing for them or all the benefit of their treatment is lost.

Those are some of the directions in which we should be going. The NDP will be supporting Bill C-14, but we think there is a lot more that needs to be done to address community safety and the issue of gangs in our society.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to narrow in on one issue that has come before the justice committee and was also part of the essence of the delegation we had from the Attorney General for British Columbia, and that goes to disclosure.

Increasingly, prosecutors and police forces are trying to keep up with the burden of complying with Stinchcombe, which is the law with respect to disclosure—that is, all of the items in the prosecution file must be provided to the defence. It is the law of the country. However, it has created an enormous burden. Many times there are tapes to review. It is a manpower or human resource issue that the government has not addressed. It has been the law of the country for some time now, and police forces and prosecutorial services are overburdened with the number of hours that are required to comply with that decision.

Would the member agree that it is time the government, instead of having a news conference every night, got down to directing the Department of Justice to comply with the need for stringent and streamlined disclosure requirements, and secondly, to directing the Minister of Finance to provide adequate resources for both the police services across this country and the prosecutorial services that need help to comply with the law?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that disclosure is an important feature of our criminal justice system. I think those who are charged in our system have the right and need the right to know the evidence against them, and that evidence should be disclosed to them so that they can mount an appropriate defence.

However, the member is absolutely right. We have to make sure that when we have an important principle like that in our system we support it with appropriate resources, that we support it with a full commitment of the government, and that we make it possible for the people we ask to do that work to do the best possible job in meeting that principle.

As I noted in my remarks earlier, one of the places where we are falling down is in regard to support for prosecutors and the important work we ask them to take on. There is no excuse for not providing that support. I think that is an area where the federal government could be doing significantly more to support our criminal justice process, to support the people who take on this important work on our behalf, which would ultimately make the system better and more successful and would give people increased confidence that this system did support them, did protect them and their rights and did do the job that we all want it to do.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, have seen restorative justice work first-hand, and I wonder if the member could speak a bit more about it. It was part of his comments, but I just want to emphasize that I agree on how important that is.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that even when I was talking about it a few minutes ago in my speech and remembering my own experience of a restorative justice process, I got a chill down my spine about how important that was to me to be part of that kind of process.

I have to say, the morning I woke up to walk the dog and saw that somebody had spray-painted the side of my house was not a very pleasant experience. While walking the dog, I came across a young man with spray paint cans being arrested by the police. I knew he was likely the perpetrator and talked to the police at that time. Later, a social worker from the aboriginal friendship centre in Vancouver contacted us and asked if we would support this young man going through a restorative justice program rather than into the court system. We knew that if he went into the court system at this point in his life, given his past record of contact with the legal system, he would end up in jail. The point was made that this might not be the best place for him in terms of his future and in terms of our community's future. My partner and I, and our neighbours, agreed that this would be an appropriate activity for us, because we realized that jail might not be the appropriate place for this person.

I have to say that working with the elders, the social workers, the court representatives, the young man and his family was very moving and very personal. It was a situation where I think we all benefited and won.

I bumped into the social worker a number of months later. She was extremely pleased with the results of that process for the young man in particular, who had in fact turned his life around because he felt that society had finally paid attention to him as a person and assisted and worked with him in a way that allowed him to find resources and support to turn his life around.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas for his always very thoughtful comments.

I noticed the hon. member talked about the four-pillar approach. I am sure he is aware that one of the problems we have had is that the Conservative government changed the four-pillar approach and basically made it a one-pillar approach, that being enforcement.

The Conservative government sometimes talks about treatment, but it has certainly dropped harm reduction, which has been a very important element of that. We have seen that in things like Insite, the safe injection site in Vancouver.

Could the hon. member comment on whether he thinks things have actually become better as a result of how the government changed Canada's drug strategy by dropping these elements?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to the hon. member for Vancouver East that I am a strong supporter of Insite, as she is.

We know that the safe injection site in Vancouver has saved lives. It has improved the health of the community by ensuring that injection drug users have a clean and supervised place to deal with their addiction. It has given them direct and regular contact with health professionals who can direct them to the kind of health care they need, the options for treatment, and can advocate on their behalf when they are able to take advantage of those kinds of directions.

The lack of support from the current federal government for this important initiative has been most frustrating across the community in Vancouver. I am always impressed at what I believe is widespread support for Insite.

It was not an easy direction for our community to take and it was controversial. Those people who have taken the time to look at its work and at the experiences of those people who are users of the Insite facility will know it has been a success in saving lives and improving the health of individuals and the community.

This is clearly a direction that should be adopted in other communities across the country, because our experience in metro Vancouver has shown that it works.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments and very insightful perspective on the important issues we are dealing with today.

I certainly appreciated the hon. member's reference to some of the very worthy initiatives happening in the context of first nations justice processes. I come from northern Canada, where there is great interest in such processes, not just by first nations but also by much of the wider community.

We recognize that these are very important, but also that there is very little financial support in terms of programming. Many of these organizations that work very hard to devise a program of justice that works best for so many young people in our region are struggling.

I would like to hear more about the hon. member's thoughts on the need for support in this area.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, often in Canadian society we have assumed that our European ways and traditions were the way to go.

In many ways, we are justly proud of our criminal justice system and the way it has been established and deals with issues of crime and justice in our communities. I think that is a tradition we can be proud of.

However, I am glad we are finally looking to first nations for their lessons, learning and traditions in this area. They have shown us as well that there is much of great value.

Being part of the restorative justice program in the aboriginal community in Vancouver was a very foundational experience for me. It showed me the value of listening to the aboriginal members of my community and learning about their appreciation and understanding of criminal activity, community, and how one maintains and builds relationships when relationships have been broken.

That is a major turning point for our society. I am glad we have had the opportunity now to learn in that way and I am glad it is happening in other communities across the country.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate.

There being no further members rising, pursuant to order made earlier today, Bill C-14 is deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)