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.

[Dr. Ramona Coelho]

Thank you very much.

The preamble of Bill C-14 did speak to conscience protection, but that is not an enforceable part of the bill. Unfortunately, in Ontario the CPS still has a policy whereby doctors have to arrange for and facilitate medical aid in dying, and what will now be an assisted death, for those who are not dying.

At that time, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Jewish and Christian groups, which are part of this submission, all reached out to the government saying that they needed further conscience protection for their adherent physicians.

Regardless of that, everybody has a line, and this is something people feel very strongly about, which I understand. I hear Dr. Daws express how this is, for her, something through which she feels she is being very merciful and compassionate.

I, who take care of very vulnerable people, have come to the opposite conclusion. I feel that they come to me and I try to offer them safety and protection, and when they are in a safe space and express their death wishes, I can try to work on creative solutions for them. I will not deny them information. I will not obstruct them, but my job is to be in their corner and fight for them to want to live again. That's because I've had many patients who have done just that.

It would be very good in Bill C-7 if we had an amendment that spoke to conscience protection, not just in the preamble.

Criminal Code

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

moved that Bill C-349, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other acts (criminal organization), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, the bill that I introduced in the House and that we are going to debate today is the last step in a series of measures put forward by the Bloc Québécois to weaken organized crime. Before getting into the crux of this bill, I think it is important to talk about the steps that the Bloc Québécois has taken in the House to fight organized crime.

In the 1990s, when the biker wars were raging in Quebec, it quickly became obvious that a new law was needed to help law enforcement in their fight against organized crime. From the start, the Bloc spoke out about this reality in the House and put pressure on the Liberal government of the time. It was former Bloc member Réal Ménard who first introduced anti-gang legislation in the House of Commons in 1995.

The passage of Bill C-59 in 1997 marked a first step in the fight against organized crime. However, the amendments to the Criminal Code were too complex and demanding for effectively securing convictions in the courts. For example, the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had participated in the activities of a gang and been a party to the commission of an indictable offence committed in connection with the criminal organization.

Because those two combined requirements made it difficult to secure convictions, the police quickly called for amendments, and, once again, the Bloc Québécois was the first to act and bring those calls into the political arena.

In 2000, the Bloc Québécois then led the effort to have amendments made to that initial anti-gang law, Bill C-59, and to expand its scope. Our leader at that time, Gilles Duceppe, was even targeted by threats and intimidation from criminal organizations, to deter him from proceeding.

Mr. Duceppe stood up to them and the Bloc demonstrated its determination. As a result, in 2002 our efforts led to the enactment of Bill C-24, which created two new, separate offences to assist in combatting organized crime. Participating in the activities of a criminal organization and committing an indictable offence for the benefit of a criminal organization became two separate offences. It became possible to secure a conviction against members of criminal organizations for gang-related or criminal organization offences. A person charged with committing an offence for the benefit of a criminal organization became liable to life imprisonment.

To better protect the public and the police who are engaged in fighting organized crime, the law also added provisions to combat the intimidation of journalists and of federal, provincial and municipal elected representatives, and also of any person who plays a role in the administration of the penal and criminal justice system.

In 2009, the Bloc Québécois again took up the issue with a motion to have criminal organizations such as criminal biker gangs recognized as illegal. Also in 2009, the Bloc supported Bill C-14 on organized crime, to have any murder committed for the benefit of a criminal organization deemed to be a premeditated murder and liable to a sentence of life imprisonment.

At the same time, and also at the initiative of the Bloc Québécois, the Criminal Code was amended to reverse the burden of proof and force criminal organizations to prove the source of their income. This was an important step forward in the fight against organized crime.

Earlier, following an international conference on money laundering and organized crime held in Montreal in 1998, the Bloc Québécois had persuaded the government to withdraw $1,000 bills from circulation, since, as everyone knows, they are used most of the time only to launder organized crime money.

The Bloc Québécois has always been a thorn in the side of organized crime. We must not forget that gangsters adapt very readily. There seems to have been a resurgence of criminal biker gangs since 2016.

Here again, we have a responsibility to act. Let me remind the House that the biker war from 1994 to 2002 was especially bloody. The eight-year tally was more than 150 murders, including nine innocents, nine disappeared, and 181 attempted murders. Things could very well start up again. Since the summer of 2016, organized crime experts and observers have noted that criminal biker gangs are making a vigorous comeback. Since Operation SharQc in 2009, most of the bikers who were charged have been let go because some of the trials just fizzled out, and many who were convicted have had their sentences reduced.

They have been making their presence increasingly known, and we have been seeing more shows of force too. In recent months, bikers have started gathering again, displaying their patches openly and with impunity. Our criminal justice system combats the criminal mindset at least as much as it does criminal activity itself. Just consider crimes of accessory: conspiracy, attempt, and inciting or counselling.

Only for practical reasons, such as how hard it is to prove, criminal mentality is more rarely punished than criminal acts themselves. The challenge associated with presenting full proof must not discourage punishments for behaviour that should be punished.

At present, the Criminal Code prohibits participation in a criminal organization only to the extent that it can be proven that the individual intended to enhance the ability of the criminal organization to commit or facilitate the commission of an indictable offence. This is difficult to prove, particularly with regard to criminal organizations that are not easily infiltrated by police.

With that in mind, we are proposing, first of all, that a list of criminal organizations be created, similar to the list of terrorist organizations that exists, and second, that patches and emblems associated with the organizations on such a list be prohibited from being worn in public.

The Bloc Québécois has been calling for this for quite some time. In the fall of 2001, on an opposition day, the Bloc moved a motion calling on Parliament to make membership in a criminal organization a criminal offence. The same year, at the committee stage of Bill C-24, the Bloc proposed an amendment at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to prohibit membership in criminal organizations. Our amendment had the support of the criminal investigations branch of the Montreal police service, which at the time was called the Montreal Urban Community Police Department.

Unfortunately, parliamentarians rejected our motion. Then in 2009, the Bloc Québécois managed to get a motion adopted at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights calling on the committee to study the possibility of creating a list of organizations once again following the model of the list of terrorist organizations. I would remind the House that the last biker gang war claimed more than 150 lives in Quebec alone, including that of an 11-year-old child.

Organized crime is very costly in terms of human life, so we cannot sit idly by and do nothing. Witnesses from the Sûreté du Québec, the SPVM, and the RCMP all supported the creation of such a list.

They believe that adding a criminal organization to a list would help crown prosecutors, because they would no longer be required to prove the existence of a criminal organization at each trial. This would be more efficient in terms of the length and cost of proceedings, and it would be more consistent.

A QPP chief inspector had this to say:

The proposal...however, would be a major and important step forward, to avoid having to prove the criminal organization all over again at each trial, for the same organization. It would save us weeks or even months of testimony and preparation to prove aspects that have already been accepted in previous court proceedings, and would therefore be an important avenue to enable us to be even more effective in combatting organized crime on the ground.

We can agree that in the era of the Jordan decision, saving weeks or even months would have been beneficial for our judicial system. That is why we are trying again this year with two new measures.

First, make it possible for the Governor in Council to establish a list of criminal organizations and to place on that list those organizations recommended by the Minister of Public Safety.

Second, make it an offence for a member of a listed criminal organization to wear emblems such as patches.

With respect to establishing a list of criminal organizations, there is no legitimate reason to knowingly be part of a criminal group. Our bill simply prohibits membership in such a group. Currently, the existence of an organization must be proven before someone can be charged with organized crime. We saw what happened with the megatrials, where trials were literally derailed because of the sheer volume of evidence. Rather than serve the cause of justice, the time it takes to process all that evidence serves only the criminals. Obviously, that is not what we want. Establishing a list of criminal organizations will shorten trials and allow justice to take its course within a reasonable period of time and achieve its ends.

People quite rightly believe that nobody should be allowed to belong to a criminal organization. Why do people believe that? Because nobody should be allowed to belong to a criminal organization.

If Parliament passes this bill, it will send a message to the people and to criminals that the government is not sitting on the sidelines. The government is taking action for justice, for the common good, and for everyone's safety.

Members of Parliament will simply not accept something so unacceptable.

The Minister of Public Safety already has the power to establish a list of terrorist groups, a list that, I really want to emphasize, has never been challenged.

In 2005, in R. v. Lindsay, Justice Fuerst of the Ontario Superior Court established that the Hells Angels were a criminal organization across Canada. However, this ruling did not exempt crown prosecutors from having to prove once again that the Hells Angels were a criminal organization in other trials.

I realize that this measure alone would not be enough to put an end to organized crime, and that proving gangsterism is not always easy, but is that not the case anyway when it comes to each and every offence?

As for emblems, the second aspect of our bill, we are proposing that an offence be created prohibiting the wearing of emblems or patches of listed criminal organizations.

Paragraph 467.11(1) of the Criminal Code states the following:

Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence...knowingly...participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence...

We believe that—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Gill, for coming in today.

I've been hearing quite a number of concerns from the opposition benches today.

One of the things is mandatory minimum sentencing. Mandatory minimum sentences have a long tradition in Canada. Since the turn of the 20th century we've had them. Usually it's in cases where there are particular crimes that the public at large finds both offensive and heinous. So for members to bring forward legitimate concerns and say that the other argument given on another bill...it doesn't apply in this case. We are finding that this particular aspect of the gang problem, where someone is recruiting youth and entering them into a life of crime, is particularly offensive to my constituents. For us to say that this is a heinous crime that needs to be stopped, we do need to put some mandatory minimum sentences to communicate that.

The previous bill did not even add clarity to the existing Criminal Code. This bill would. It would send a very broad message that gangs are a problem in our Canadian cities and we need to have a full range of tools available to law enforcement, particularly a mandatory minimum sentence.

Our government's support for this bill is consistent with a long-standing commitment to improving existing responses to crime, including organized crime, as reflected in many of our election platform commitments and speeches from the throne. For example, you have, from 2008, Bill C-2, which created mandatory minimum penalties for serious gun crimes involving organized crime; Bill C-14 in 2009, which deems murder committed on behalf of criminal organizations to be automatically first degree murder, and creates a new offence targeting drive-by shootings; the enactment of a serious offence regulation in 2010 for the purposes of organized crime provisions in the Criminal Code; and most recently, Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which proposes mandatory minimum penalties for drug crimes committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization.

Mr. Gill, your bill proposes to create a new indictable Criminal Code offence that would prohibit the recruitment, the solicitation, the encouragement, or the invitation of another person to join a criminal organization for the purpose of enhancing the ability of that criminal organization to facilitate or commit indictable offences.

I'll stop there, Mr. Chair, because that clarifies that this particular aspect of organized crime is unacceptable in our society. That's why this adds clarity, in my view, to the Criminal Code, specifically because it highlights this heinous activity. There are many activities that may go on in organized crime. I appreciate Mr. Mai's wording of his concerns, but by the same token, this is one of the parts where we have to say that no more is acceptable.

Anyway, though many in the opposition say that mandatory minimum penalties are ineffective, this offence would be punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum penalty of imprisonment of six months if the individual who's recruited is under the age of 18.

Mr. Gill, getting back to your testimony, how do you think this mandatory minimum penalty would help get these gangs that prey on the most vulnerable in our society? What kind of message would that send to the broader criminal element? Again, as you said, Toronto City Council has said this is a recurring problem. They support your bill.

How will a mandatory minimum sentence send a signal to those who would perpetrate these crimes?

Abolition of Early Parole Act

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I join in the debate on Bill C-59, the Abolition of Early Parole Act today.

Like many of my colleagues, the hon. members in this House, I have spent quite some time talking to Canadians about the need for this legislation. I am confident that all of us are hearing the same thing; that it is time to take action to crack down on white-collar offenders and we need to do it now.

I have heard from victims who have told me that they are tired of seeing and hearing about offenders who have perhaps wiped out their life savings and are not serving appropriate times for their actions. I have spoken to ordinary Canadians and to the families of innocent victims and they told me that it was time for all of us to work together to crack down on the activities of white-collar offenders who might not use a gun but who, nonetheless, wreak havoc on the lives of hard-working and law-abiding Canadians. They told me that we need to get tough on those offenders whose illegal activities leave scores of victims in their wake.

I am therefore pleased to support the bill before us today, which would do all of that and would build on our government's already impressive record of standing up for victims and cracking down on all types of crime.

Over the last five years, our government has done a lot to make our streets safer through investments in crime prevention, law enforcement and in the tools for police officers to do their jobs. In fact, several of our justice bills last year alone received royal assent, including: Bill C-14, which targets gang violence and organized crime by addressing issues such as gang murders, drive-by shootings and additional protection for police and the police officers; Bill C-25, which fulfills our government's commitment to Canadians to help keep offenders from being given two-for-one credit and sometimes three-for-one credit in pre-sentencing custody; and Bill S-4, which will help combat the complex, serious and growing problem of identity theft and identity fraud.

I am also proud to say that our government recently passed legislation to help reform the pardon system. In particular, we have made sure that the National Parole Board of Canada has the discretion it needs to determine whether granting a pardon would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

We have passed legislation targeting gang violence and organized crime by addressing issues such as gang murders, drive-by shootings and additional protection for police officers.

We recently passed legislation to strengthen the National Sex Offenders Registry and the national DNA data bank in order to better protect our children and other vulnerable members of society from sexual predators.

Of course our government has most recently introduced legislation to crack down on individuals involved in the despicable crime of human smuggling, which threatens our communities as well as Canada's immigration system.

In addition, our government has provided more money to the provinces and the territories so that they can hire additional police officers. I am very proud to note that Statistics Canada reported in December that the number of police officers across Canada is now at its highest point since 1981.

As well, the government has taken action to help young people make smart choices and avoid becoming involved in gang activity through programs funded through the National Crime Prevention Centre.

Our government has taken significant action that achieves results in tackling crime in our communities. We will continue to do more.

It is no secret that crimes and criminal activities can take on many forms. We often hear about violent gun crimes and communities which can and often do shatter lives. As I have mentioned, our government has done a lot to get tough with offenders who commit such terrible acts.

Of course, there are other types of crimes that can be just as devastating even though they do not involve the use of handguns. All of us have heard about the ruined lives left behind by white-collar offenders who prey on law-abiding citizens, often leaving them with nothing to show for a lifetime of hard work and savings for their retirement.

All of us have heard about the need to take action, to crack down on white-collar crime and stand up for the victims. That is what the legislation before us today would do.

As we have heard today, many offenders obtain parole early through a process called accelerated parole review. First-time offenders who have committed non-violent offences can access day parole at one-sixth of their sentence and full parole at one-third of their sentence. Unless the Parole Board of Canada has reasonable grounds to believe these offenders will commit a violent offence if released, it must release them into the community.

This means that, in some cases, a fraudster, a thief or even a drug dealer can be back on the streets early. Such an offender could be sentenced to 12 years but actually be released into the community on day parole in just 2 short years and fully paroled at just 4 years. The status quo gives the Parole Board little or no discretion in dealing with these cases. The test is whether an offender is likely to commit a violent offence. As a result, even if the Parole Board believes the offender is likely to commit another fraud, another theft or another drug offence, it is nonetheless compelled to release them.

What makes the review process even more expedited is that these accelerated parole reviews are accomplished through a paper review by the Parole Board of Canada, whereas regular parole reviews are normally done by way of a hearing.

The test for accelerated parole review is also lower. The Parole Board of Canada only has to have reasonable grounds to believe that the offender will not commit a violent offence, whereas, with other offenders, the test is whether the person is an undue risk to commit any type of crime if released. The test for accelerated parole review is whether someone is going to commit a violent offence. Even if the Parole Board believes that someone will commit another fraud, the board is still compelled to release the person under supervision at one-sixth of his or her sentence. In many cases that means that people who are convicted of crimes that have had devastating effects on the lives and livelihood of Canadians often spend very little time in prison. The end result is that offenders convicted of white-collar crimes are often released under supervision after only a very few short months. Offenders are given lengthy sentences which do not result in much time actually spent in prison.

This offends Canadians' sense of justice and it undermines their faith in our justice and in our corrections system. It should offend all of our senses of justice, and we need to change this. Canadians want change and that is what our government is delivering.

Bill C-59 would abolish accelerated parole review and repeal sections of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that govern the accelerated parole review regime. It would mean that offenders who commit non-violent or white-collar crimes are put on the same footing as other offenders. They would be eligible for regular day parole review six months prior to full parole eligibility and full parole review after serving one-third of their sentence. Rather than being subject to a paper review, they would be subject to an in-person hearing. The test as to whether they should be released would be whether they present an unmanageable risk of committing another crime. It is a very key point and something that all members should highlight.

The changes that our government is proposing would mean that Canadians can have faith that offenders convicted of white-collar crimes will not escape full accountability for their actions.

Our government has listened to the concerns of victims of fraud and other crimes and we are taking action on their concerns. By fixing the problem of early parole for offenders, we are following through on our tackling crime agenda. Our government believes that Canadians deserve a justice system that balances the rights of offenders with the rights of law-abiding citizens.

The commitment we are announcing today brings us another step closer to this important goal. Once again I urge all hon. members to work with the government to ensure that Bill C-59 is passed into law in the most timely way possible.

[Inspector Bryan Martin, Drug Enforcement Section, Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau, Ontario Provincial Police]

Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to address the panel on behalf of the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Ontario Provincial Police has a mandated responsibility to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle organized crime. In order to accomplish this goal, the OPP developed the Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau, which is comprised of specialized integrated investigative bodies such as the biker enforcement unit and the provincial weapons enforcement unit.

The OCEB is comprised of four main operating centres strategically located throughout Ontario. We operate on an intelligence-led policing model, establishing tactical priorities throughout the province, allowing us to identify and attack the vulnerabilities of organized crime, as per the goals of the Canadian integrated response to organized crime.

The OPP supports legislative amendments and reform designed to combat organized crime as defined by Bill C-14, which received royal assent and came into force on October 2, 2009. Bill C-14 has taken a strong step forward in bolstering existing legislation with a specific focus on criminal acts related to organized crime and revised judicial processes. This new legislation has focused on designating all gang-related murders as first degree murder, addressed increasing incidents of reckless and drive-by shootings by creating a new offence, and defined a new offence for assaults against police.

There are clearly a number of strong initiatives on this legislative agenda to target organized crime. The OPP believes the justice sector community must prioritize these initiatives to ensure the effective and efficient use of our resources as we move forward with strategies to attack organized crime. The Ontario Provincial Police has identified three main priorities.

The number one priority is lawful access. The OPP, the Toronto Police Service, and our regional municipal partners recognize the need for changes to existing legislation surrounding lawful access to communications. One of law enforcement's unrelenting challenges in addressing organized crime is to remain cognizant of emerging trends and to take proactive and effective steps to counter these trends. In a world of accelerating technological developments and society's increasing absorption with technology, law enforcement has been slowly constricted by antiquated legislation and a lack of resources to effectively counter advances in technology.

The Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act, Bill C-46, and the Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act, Bill C-47, passed first reading in June 2009. However, they died when Parliament was prorogued. It is hoped that these pieces of legislation will be reintroduced to address the gaps and restrictions previously identified. As such, the Ontario Provincial Police strongly endorses and supports the passage of these bills.

The second priority is e-disclosure. The traditional method of making full disclosure has created an enormous challenge for police and crowns, particularly in relation to organized crime investigations. The impact on resources and personnel is significant and, as such, the Ontario Provincial Police fully endorses and supports current efforts to reform, modernize, and streamline the disclosure process.

An excellent example of this was demonstrated recently in Operation SharQc, a large-scale investigation in Quebec that resulted in the arrests of hundreds of individuals. Investigators utilized a highly effective web-based solution to capture and streamline large volumes of disclosure for this mega-case. The OPP continues to strongly endorse and champion further advancements within this new technology.

The third area is justice efficiencies. In case management, the investigation and prosecution of organized crime cases is very complex and demands significant time and personnel, combined with the collection, collation, and disclosure of evidence. In most major organized crime investigations, there are multiple offenders. However, previous experience has shown us that investigating and effectively prosecuting a large number of accused is very unmanageable, time consuming, and very expensive. The OPP believes this area to be a priority for setting attainable and realistic goals and garnering solid convictions in relation to mega-trials.

On scheduling, having reviewed evidence provided to provincial panels representing the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I would be remiss if I didn't speak to the proposed scheduling of criminal organizations.

[Graeme Norton, Director, Public Safety Project, Canadian Civil Liberties Association]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. On behalf on the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, I thank you very much for inviting us here today to share our thoughts with you.

For those of you not familiar with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, let me say that we're a national, non-profit civil liberties watchdog and advocacy organization that was founded in 1964. Our core mandate is to promote respect for and observance of fundamental civil liberties and human rights and to ensure the protection and full exercise of those rights and liberties in Canada. Our work involves research, advocacy, litigation, and public education. Our membership consists of several thousand paid supporters from many walks of life.

The CCLA recognizes that organized crime can do great harm to society. Such crime can disrupt the social fabric of our communities and cause threats to our economic and personal security. It can lead to proliferation of violence and take a tremendous and tragic toll on those who are affected, both directly and indirectly.

The CCLA does not have an expressed position on organized crime per se. We do, however, believe that any steps taken to address this phenomenon must, like all laws, be necessary and effective and infringe as little as possible upon the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

It is from this perspective that we have considered several of the specific proposals and tools this committee has looked at for combatting organized crime. I'm going to briefly address three of those proposals in my presentation this morning, and hopefully I'll be able to do my best to answer questions you have on any other tools for fighting organized crime that you've looked at in the course of your review.

First, I'd like to address the issue of mandatory minimum sentences, which I know this committee has considered in some detail, both within and beyond the organized crime context. The recent passage of Bill C-2 and Bill C-14 have introduced more mandatory minimum penalties in Canada, some of which have been directly targeted at organized crime offences. Also, the forthcoming reintroduction of what was previously Bill C-15, the government's drug crime legislation, will bring further attention to the mandatory minimum issue in the coming months.

With regard to mandatory minimum jail sentences, it is the CCLA's position that such sentences are not an appropriate tool for fighting crime in Canada. This is our position irrespective of the crime for which the sentence may be imposed, and we base this position on three primary observations.

First, mandatory minimums create the possibility that the court will be forced to impose a predetermined sentence in a case where that sentence is unduly harsh. This could result in an offender receiving an excessive sentence, leading to an injustice in that particular case.

Second, mandatory minimums are not effective. Indeed, the majority of studies that have looked at this issue have found that few people are even aware of mandatory minimum sentences, and that where they do exist, they have not proven to be a successful deterrent to crime.

Third, mandatory minimum sentences can distort the justice system by transferring discretion from judges to police and prosecutors. Where a judge has no choice but to impose a certain sentence, the real determination about the level of punishment an offender receives will be made through decisions that occur before a trial even begins, such as whether to charge at all or whether to proceed summarily or by way of indictment.

Given these realities, the CCLA urges the committee to recommend against the further use of mandatory minimums as a crime-fighting tool for organized crime.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to be here before the members of the standing committee to answer questions or hear comments concerning supplementary estimates (B) for the Department of Justice.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, our government was elected on a promise to tackle crime, and we're unwavering in our commitment to fighting crime and protecting Canadians so that our communities are safe places for people to live, raise their families, and do business. To help us fulfill that commitment, I've relied on the advice and the tireless efforts of the employees of the Department of Justice, and I deeply appreciate their support as our government moves forward with its crime agenda.

Our government firmly believes that the protection of society must remain the first priority of our criminal justice system and that sentences should reflect the severity of the crime. To that effect, we've succeeded in implementing legislation to ensure adequate sentences, such as our comprehensive Tackling Violent Crime Act, which legislated tougher jail time for serious gun crimes, increased the age of protection from 14 to 16 years to better protect our youth from adult sexual predators, and provided strong penalties for alcohol-impaired driving. In addition, we've also increased penalties for those convicted of street racing, ended conditional sentences for serious personal injury offences, and passed legislation to combat illegal copying of films in movie theatres.

In our fight against identity theft, we have succeeded in adding three new offences to the Criminal Code through Bill S-4, targeting the early stages of identity-related crime and giving the police the tools they had been lacking to move against this ever growing problem before the damage is done.

With regard to gangs and organized crime, we have passed Bill C-14, which will increase penalties for murders and reckless shootings connected to these activities. Once it comes into force, any murder connected to organized crime activity will automatically be considered first degree and subject to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years.

On October 22, our government succeeded in eliminating two-for-one credit for time spent in jail while waiting for trial, a practice that disproportionately reduced prison sentences for some violent offenders. Police associations, victim groups, and indeed all provinces and territories expressed their support for that bill.

Mr. Chairman, our government has made great strides, but there is more that we can be doing to protect Canadians. For example, in recent months I have spoken to victims of various fraud schemes and white collar crime, and they clearly attested to the gravity of those crimes. Fraud can have a devastating impact on the lives of its victims, not only as it affects their financial security but also through feelings of humiliation for having been deceived and voluntarily handing over their life savings. These schemes can be every bit as devastating as a physical assault.

The determination of these victims to call for action on fraud in the face of their emotional turmoil reaffirmed the need to act quickly and effectively against this type of crime. That's why I recently introduced Bill C-52, which cracks down on white collar crime and fraud and increases justice for victims.

These measures will allow victims to be heard and their concerns to be taken seriously by the courts.

We've also taken extremely seriously the many instances of child sexual exploitation facilitated by the Internet. The worldwide web provides new and easier means for offenders to make, view, and distribute child pornography, resulting in a significant increase not only in the availability and volume of pornography but also in the level of violence perpetrated against children.

Our government recently proposed a mandatory reporting regime across Canada that will require suppliers of Internet services to report certain information about Internet child pornography. This is one more step in our efforts to better protect children from sexual predators and help police rescue these young victims and prosecute the criminals responsible.

Our government has shown its concern for the victims of multiple murderers and their families. We firmly believe that the families of murder victims should not be made to feel that the life of their loved one doesn't count. This is why I tabled Bill C-36, which will permit judges to impose consecutive periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murderers.

While there can only be one life sentence for an offender who commits more than one murder, the parole ineligibility period, 25 years in the case of a first-degree murderer, could be imposed consecutively for each subsequent murder. In addition, we continue to seek elimination of the “faint hope” clause of the Criminal Code. By saying no to early parole for murderers, our government hopes to spare families the pain of attending repeated parole eligibility hearings and having to re-live these unspeakable losses over and over again.

Both of these pieces of legislation would acknowledge the value of every life taken by this most serious of crimes. It would ensure the criminals responsible serve a sentence that more adequately reflects the gravity of their crimes.

Mr. Chair, protecting people is a priority, not an afterthought. Our government remains committed to improving our justice system in order to properly address the problem of drug producers and traffickers.

Last spring I was in Vancouver to announce, alongside senior law enforcement officials, that our government was seeking to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act by introducing Bill C-15.

This legislation would impose mandatory sentences on drug producers and traffickers, especially targeting the criminal enterprise of gangs and other violent criminal organizations, because we know that drugs are the currency of organized crime.

Having this legislation passed as quickly as possible would better protect our communities and send a clear message that if you produce and traffic in marijuana, if you're into the grow op business in residential neighbourhoods, if you threaten the safety of Canada's communities, you will serve jail time.

It's been six months since that bill was referred to the Senate. It's still not out of committee. I certainly urge all members of Parliament to do whatever we can to ensure and promote and push to get that important piece of legislation passed.

We are doing many things at the department. One of the things we are doing is investing some $10 million in the guns, gangs, and drugs initiative, which funds community-based programs that seek to help youth resist the lure of gang involvement and illicit drug use.

The Department of Justice is also committed to continuing to play a leadership role in strengthening the justice system through non-legislative means. The department has requested some $3 million in the main estimates for grants and contributions under the justice partnership and innovation program. This program contributes to policy development to ensure that justice remains accessible, efficient, effective, and that it reflects Canadian values.

We're also committed to helping victims better navigate and deal with the criminal justice and correctional systems. To that end, we have increased allocations to the victims fund to, among other things, provide greater financial assistance to those victims who wish to attend national parole board hearings, assist Canadians victimized abroad, provide additional funding to provincial and territorial governments to enhance or develop new services for underserviced victims of crime, and provide resources to the territories to directly assist victims with emergency costs.

In total, we have increased the funding for the federal victim strategy by $52 million over four years. We've also created the independent federal ombudsman for victims of crime to ensure that the federal government lives up to its commitments and obligations to victims of crime and to give victims a strong and effective voice in the criminal justice system.

We also recognize that aboriginal people enter our justice system in disproportionate numbers. As a result, we have renewed our commitment to the aboriginal justice strategy until 2012. We will make an additional investment of $40 million, for a total of $85 million over five years.

The strategy funds programs that provide justice services to more than 400 aboriginal communities across Canada, helping to hold offenders accountable for their actions, increase awareness of victims issues, and promote greater youth connection with aboriginal culture and traditions.

Mr. Chairman, ours is a busy agenda. I think we are doing important work. It's an important component of what we are here to do as members of Parliament.

I thank this committee for its work in moving forward on these justice initiatives. I look forward to more cooperation from this committee. Thank you again.

Support Measures for Adoptive Parents

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

moved:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development, and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be instructed to examine current federal support measures that are available to adoptive parents and their adopted children, recognizing and respecting provincial and territorial jurisdictions in this regard and, following completion of its study, report back to the House with its findings.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak on my motion regarding the subject of federal supports for adoptive parents.

My Motion No. 386 recommends the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development, and the Status of Persons with Disabilities examine current federal support measures available for adoptive parents, while recognizing and respecting provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Such a study would be beneficial in helping us evaluate current public policy, while shedding more light on issues faced by adoptive parents.

Some hon. members may be surprised to discover that I was adopted as an infant into the care of a wonderful family, and that I count an esteemed senator and Hockey Hall of Fame forward as a relative through my biological mother.

It may come as a further surprise that my wife, Sarah, and I have desired for several years now to add to our five beautiful biological children and adopt a child as well. It is this journey that has connected us to many other Canadians who are seeking to adopt, or who have adopted, and the myriad challenges they face along the way.

I will come back to this later in my comments, but first, let us establish a clear foundation.

The family is the basic building block of society. Everything starts with the family. It is where we raise, nurture and protect our children. It is where we teach them about who they are, where they come from and why they are here. So much of our society's future depends upon ensuring Canadian families receive the proper respect and support they need to ensure their children succeed, learn, grow and take their place in society.

Let us agree that there is equal value for parenting, whether one is a biological or adoptive parent. Let us also agree that there is equal value for children, whether biological or adopted. And let this fundamental accord ultimately find full expression in the policy choices of government.

Currently there are several support measures available to adoptive parents. EI parental benefits are available for working parents. Our Conservative government passed Bill C-14, granting permanent resident status or Canadian citizenship to adopted children, making that process quicker and easier. Adoptive parents are also eligible for a range of supports that our government provides to families with children, including the adoption tax credit, which helps defray the cost of adoption at tax time.

Adoptive parents also receive the universal child care benefit of $100 per child under six and the child tax credit of $2,000 per child under 18, measures enacted by this government. As well, they are eligible for the Canada child benefit and the national child benefit supplement for families with low and middle income levels.

By way of example, and as the most visible support available to adoptive parents, let me speak more fully about the EI program and its special benefits, which include parental benefits.

The EI program currently includes four types of special benefits to support working Canadians when they experience an interruption in earnings owing to childbirth, parenting, illness or the provision of care or support to a gravely ill family member.

The EI program has provided maternity benefits to a maximum of 15 weeks since 1971. These weeks are specifically for birth mothers to recover while they are physically unable to work due to pregnancy or childbirth. Maternity benefits can start up to eight weeks prior to the expected date of birth, and allow biological mothers to recuperate after childbirth and care for their newborn infants during their first weeks after the birth.

The EI program helps both biological and adoptive parents balance work and family responsibilities by providing support for them to stay home with their newly born or adopted child. These are parental benefits and they are payable to a maximum of 35 weeks. Adoptive parents may receive these benefits from the date the child is placed with the new family, and the 35 weeks of parental benefits can be used by either the mother or father, or shared between them.

There are some elements under maternity and parental EI benefits designed to make the program flexible and supportive. For example, if parental benefits are being shared by both parents, only one waiting period needs to be served. If a child has to be hospitalized, parents can choose to claim parental benefits immediately or when the child comes home from the hospital.

Additional benefits are also available to assist low-income families with children through the family supplement, which can increase the basic benefit rate from 55% to a maximum of 80% for claimants with low net family incomes.

A further element of flexibility is parents may collect maternity and parental benefits while out of the country by advising Service Canada of their absence from Canada before leaving.

The EI program also allows parents to work while on claim. Effective as of December last year, our government increased the amount that could be earned while working part-time and receiving EI benefits. Some families require that.

Last, I will not to go into possible maternity benefits for self-employed Canadians except to say that a government bill will ultimately capture that part of the debate.

Biological and adoptive parents share many things. Bringing a baby home is exciting, exhilarating and exhausting. There is a shared concern about having the abilities and the time needed to lay a solid foundation for a healthy relationship with their children. Both biological and adoptive parents need recuperation for emotional, physical and psychological effects of receiving children.

While maternity benefits recognize this for biological parents, currently there is no additional benefit for adoptive parents. There are some real and often little or unknown challenges facing adoptive parents, which birth parents do not face and which need to be considered in the light of public policy.

First, adoption means parents have to prove they are acceptable in order to receive a child and the process is gruelling. The same is not true of biological parents. As one adoptive mother shared with me, “We were meeting with the social worker and watching our family, marriage, children and history get picked apart and analyzed. We spent four months under an intense microscope. They questioned our motives, our communication, our parenting and our marriage. We usually left these meetings feelings wrung out and completely bare”.

The same mother understood the need for ensuring the fitness and commitment of potential parents for adopting a child but, nevertheless, what it underscore is this process is draining and something biological parents do not have to face.

Second, the time before receiving the child can be very different for biological and adoptive parents. Not only is the screening process I spoke of emotionally taxing, but the process of adoption has fees and costs, not to mention the abundant lost work time, and that is income that is not replaced.

Adoptive parents almost always wait longer to receive their child than biological parents. Gestation is usually not longer than nine and a half months. While quick adoptions are available for those seeking a child with special needs, beyond that adoptive parents wait and wait.

Adoptive parents are at a disadvantage to biological parents in the attachment process before receiving a child. Attachment starts for biological parents during the pregnancy. Mom begins to feel and experience fetal development and movement in her own body. Dad can begin to experience and relate to the developing baby in utero, as well. With the marvels of modern ultrasound, biological moms and dads can see their baby long before birth.

Adoptive parents, on the other hand, cannot begin the process of attachment until their child is placed with them. Though, in some cases, like private adoptions, where the mother is known to prospective adoptive parents, the process of attachment can begin earlier. However, there is little freedom to fully enter into attachment for either parents-to-be or a child with remaining ties to the biological mother and the prospect that after child placement, the biological mother can revoke her decision to put the child up for adoption. In most cases, however, the child is unknown to the hopeful parents until the time of placement.

Third, adoptive parents usually have little notice when it is time to receive their child. For biological parents, and as a father of five, with a wife who as a doula or a birth coach has attended some 200 live births, I have a little knowledge about this, normal pregnancy offers many clues to the arrival of baby in the lead-up to birth. As such, maternity benefits can be planned for. For adoptive parents, pre-placement is a wait, then a frantically, or almost chaotically at times, hurry up. Such a situation leaves little or no opportunity to prepare for placement by arranging proper leave from work. In other words, transition is far from seamless for adoptive parents.

Fourth, birth always involves a baby. Adoption does not. The older the adopted child, often the tougher is the transition for parent and child. Older children who are adopted can experience developmental delays or health issues that can complicate the process of attachment to adoptive parents.

Because older children come with a history, either with the biological mother or through foster care, they can often be dealing with issues of loss, trauma, neglect or multiple caregivers. Moreover, barriers to successful parent-child attachment perpetuate the child's inability to form trusting and reliable relationships in life.

Consider Jennifer L. and the transitional difficulties that she, her husband, Jason, their three biological children and her then two-year-old adopted son, who had a history of neglect from his biological mother, experienced. She stated:

“No one will ever convince me that children have less awareness than adults. Sometimes...they're more keenly aware of what is happening. That was true for our little boy. He knew [his biological mother] was leaving him forever and reacted like she was. I've never heard a cry like that one that came out of his little body that day, not before, nor since. He shook with loss, sobbed with loss, fully understood loss and a part of his heart was broken. That's what it sounded like. Five years later we still face it every once in a while: a broken heart more ready to lash out at love than to receive it and more able to test than trust”.

Once our parental rights were established, two weeks after “leaving day” we thought he'd be able to experience a smooth transition into our family. We spent a year thinking that every day. And every day his actions begged that we reject him...If we hugged, he bit. If we praised, he ripped. He banged his head into walls and threw himself off stairs. He rolled screaming from one end of the room to the other for hours and hours - sometimes the entire time he was awake. And we loved and we cried and we despaired and we held on harder. We were told he had an attachment disorder. No one needed to tell us - we lived it. When I considered the attachment I had with my biological children I remembered the time spent holding them as infants, rocking, and cradling them. So we wrapped him in a snuggly and we held him. And he screamed. And we held him longer.

The stress was overwhelming. The bar for adoption had been set so high we felt as though we had barely been approved as parents. Would they now take him away? We were failing. Our children were stressed. They all had eagerly anticipated this little brother. And he had rejected them completely. As a family we decided to make lists of what we were thankful for in him so we could yell them out in the midst of his yelling. He had an amazing giggle. He loved to help. He made us laugh. And when he disconnected from us these kept us holding on”.

Jennifer's experience is not uncommon for parents who adopt children that are older than infants.

We rightly recognize the value of biological motherhood and time together for biological parents and children as a worthwhile investment, but what about adoptive parents? They need their unique circumstances understood by those with a mandate to legislate, to know that their desire to parent is met with policies that support their choice to adopt.

It has been said “It takes a village to raise a child”. With thousands of children in foster care across Canada and children orphaned around the world through famine, natural disaster, civil unrest and wars, those among us able and willing to adopt are key to the well-being of these children and to the building of vibrant families and communities. A grateful society must do all it can to assist them in their parenthood journey.

I call on the House to support this motion to have the HUMA committee study the supports available to adoptive parents. Let it call witnesses to explore the challenges of adoptive parents. Let it examine both domestic and international adoptions. Let it compare what supports are offered in other jurisdictions like Quebec and B.C. Can we find a consensus around two or three issues that, no matter our partisan stripe, we can all support?

Maybe after hearing testimony, committee members will agree with me that it is time for a flexible EI adoption transition leave of comparable length to maternity benefits. Colleagues, I have a vision of a Canada big enough and loving enough to affirm the value of all children. Join with me and vote yes on Motion No. 386.

Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak again on this matter.

Before I came to this House, I was a member of the Durham Regional Police Services Board. When I was there, I had the opportunity obviously on a regular basis to talk with officers around the changing technologies and the fact that our laws simply had not kept pace. People were committing fraud online or hiding behind anonymity on Internet service providers and performing serious crimes, and the police simply could not follow them.

I was first elected in 2004 and when I came to Parliament, I was pleased to support the work of the then Liberal government to create what was the modernization of investigative techniques act. That bill which was introduced in 2005 is ostensibly what is before the House today in both bills, Bill C-46 and Bill C-47, which is now being debated. Unfortunately, in 2005 the Conservatives precipitated an election and that killed the bill.

The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine then reintroduced that as a private member's bill in the next session and again that bill was killed when the Prime Minister walked to the Governor General's office and then killed that legislation.

In this session of Parliament that same Liberal member of Parliament introduced that Liberal legislation yet again. We had to wait until the end of the last session before the Conservatives finally introduced it.

As I said, just before we began question period, it is a little rich to me that the Conservatives would be going on about the imperative need to pass the bill and how much it is needed for police and how critical it is when they in fact have had four years to introduce it and are the ones responsible for killing it in various stages at various moments in time.

When they finally did introduce it, they introduced it in the last week the House was sitting before summer when there was no opportunity to debate it, there was no opportunity to move it forward. Now, it has been left until the end of October before we are finally dealing with the bill.

It shows that the Conservatives' commitment to the bill is fragile at best. In fact, we have seen what they do on criminal justice matters. They introduce bills and let them languish on the order paper. Then they wait for a scandal or a problem to hit and then they seek refuge in those same crime bills, suddenly bringing them back with great urgency saying they need to be dealt with immediately and any opposition party that dares to ask a question on them is somehow soft on crime.

The facts do not measure up. The facts are that they have allowed these things to languish for years and something that should have been dealt with, the Liberal legislation that was introduced so long ago, has meant that those people are committing online fraud and the police officers who need those additional investigative techniques and tools have been left without them as the government has completely failed them.

I think it is important to note as well that this is not the only area where we have seen this problem with the government. I spoke a great deal yesterday about the importance of these new investigative techniques for police. My intention is not today to repeat all of those comments but to make a comment more generally on the direction the Conservatives are heading on crime.

Today, in the public safety and national security committee we had a couple of different witnesses. One of the witnesses was Dr. Craig Jones who is the executive director of the John Howard Society of Canada. His insights into the direction in which the government is heading on crime I think is very telling. I will quote from his comments today. He said at the beginning of his statement:

My second audience is the future. I suffer no illusions that I will be able to alter the course of this government’s crime agenda--which legislative components contradict evidence, logic, effectiveness, justice and humanity. The government has repeatedly signalled that its crime agenda will not be influenced by evidence of what does and does not actually reduce crime and create safer communities.

What we heard as well from Mr. Stewart along with Michael Jackson, who wrote a report about the government's broken direction on corrections and crime, is that we are walking down the same road that the Americans embarked on in the early 1980s, when Republicans came forward and presented the same type of one-type solution for crime, which is incarceration, more incarceration and only incarceration.

If we did not have that example and the example that was in the United Kingdom, perhaps the Conservatives would be forgiven for thinking that would work. The reality of the United States is that this is a catastrophic disaster. In fact, the governor of California is now saying the state is being crushed under the weight of the mistake of these decisions, that the prisons are literally overflowing. The supreme court of California had to release thousands of offenders into the streets because the prisons simply had no room for them.

We also see that these prisons become crime factories. Minor criminals go in often for drug-related crimes, break and enters or smaller but still serious crimes, but instead of getting help for the addiction or mental health issues they face, they get sent into prison environments where they learn to be much worse criminals. We could make the analogy of putting in a butter knife and getting out a machine gun.

In fact, in committee today the director of the John Howard Society quoted an individual who deals with aboriginal inmates and said that our prison systems are turning into “gladiator schools”. He stated:

So our federal prisons have become “gladiator schools” where we train young men in the art of extreme violence or where we warehouse mentally ill people. All of this was foreseeable by anyone who cared to examine the historical experience of alcohol prohibition, but since we refuse to learn from history we are condemned to repeat it.

Everyone can imagine that as we continually overpopulate these prisons and do not provide the services to rehabilitate people, it has to come out somewhere. Where it comes out is in a system that continually degenerates.

In California the rate of recidivism, the rate at which people reoffend, is now 70%. Imagine that, 7 out of every 10 criminals who go into that system come out and reoffend, and those offences are often more serious than the ones they went in for first. In other words, people are going into the system and then coming out much worse.

We have to remember that even when we increase sentences, over 90% of offenders will get out. We can extend the length of time they are staying in there, but at a certain time they are going to get out, and it is the concern of anybody who wants a safe country or community that when people come out of these facilities, they come out ready to be reintegrated, to contribute to society and not reoffend.

The other fundamental problem with the Conservative approach to crime is that it waits for victims. Conservatives think the only way to deal with crime is to wait until somebody has been victimized and a crime has occurred, and then to punish the person.

Of course, we believe in serious sentences. We have to have serious sentences for serious crimes, but that is not nearly enough. If it were enough, if simply having tough sentences were enough to stop crime, then places like Detroit, Houston and Los Angeles would be the safest cities in North America. We know that is certainly not the case.

What the Conservatives are doing is slashing crime prevention budgets. Actual spending in crime prevention has been slashed by more than 50% since the Conservatives came into power. They have cut programs.

I have gone to communities like Summerside and talked to the Boys and Girls Clubs or the Salvation Army in different communities. They said they have either lost funding for community projects to help youth at risk or, instead of being given the power to decide how to stop crime in their own communities, they are prescribed solutions from on high in Ottawa, which is disconnected and often does not work in those local communities.

The net result is that the community, which has the greatest capacity to stop crime, has its ability removed of stopping that crime from happening in the first place, which means even more people go to these prisons, continually feeding this factory of crime the Conservatives are marching forward with.

When we look at the costs of all of this, not only does it not provide a benefit, not only does it make our communities less safe, as has been proven in the United States, but there is a staggering cost to these policies. Pursuing a failed Republican agenda on crime that not even the Republicans would subscribe to any more in most states and most quarters in the United States comes with a staggering cost.

The Conservatives are refusing to release those figures. The minister has been refusing to tell us what exactly the price tag is for all of these measures they are putting on the table. That is why I have asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to take a look at all of these measures and their approach on crime, and tell us just what the cost is.

That bears some important questions to be asked. Where are the Conservatives going to get the money to build these new super prisons that they are talking about? Where are they going to get the money to house all of these additional inmates? Presumably, they would provide programs and services to make these inmates better. Where is that money going to come from?

If the example in the United States is any evidence, or if the example of the Conservatives' own action in slashing crime prevention budgets is any example, then we know that they will cut from the very things that stop crime from happening in the first place. Imagine the irony of that. To pay for prisons, they are going to cut the very things that stop people from going to prison. It is a backward philosophy under any logic. Upon examination of more than a minute or two, one would recognize that it is a recipe for disaster.

If that were not bad enough, and I think that it speaks directly to this bill, the Conservatives have also betrayed police. I have talked with the Canadian Police Association about the government's commitment to put 2,500 new officers on the street. That association has called that broken promise a betrayal. However, we also know that, with respect to the RCMP, the Prime Minister went out to Vancouver where he made a solemn commitment to RCMP officers that they would get the same wage as other police officers and that they would receive parity with other police officers.

Right after making that promise and signing a contract, he ripped that contract up and broke the promise. Worse, as if that was not enough of an insult to the men and women who are our national police force, the government then challenged in court the right of RCMP officers to have the choice of whether or not they wanted to have collective bargaining. The government decided to challenge a right that is enjoyed by every other police force in the country.

At the same time, the government has ignored call after call by public inquiry after public inquiry for proper and adequate oversight. The reports and conclusions of Justice Iacobucci and Justice O'Connor made it clear that new oversight mechanisms were critical to ensure that public confidence remained in our national security institutions and our national police force, yet the government ignored it. In this example, it ignored for four years Liberal legislation that had been put forward to give officers the tools that they needed to do the job of keeping our communities safe.

In all of this, the government's response is to skew the Liberal record and be dishonest about what exactly Liberals have done on crime. Here is an inconvenient fact that it does not like to talk about. For every year the Liberal government was in power, crime rates went down. Every single year that we were in power, Canada became a safer place. The communities were safer and that is because we took a balanced approach to crime.

However, the government also says that we have blocked its crime bills. That is incredibly disingenuous. Here is the reality. Maybe I will go over a couple of bills just from this session. These are bills that the Liberal Patry not only supported but moved to accelerate and tried to find a way to get passed as expediently as possible in the House.

The government caused an election, so it killed all of its own bill. When it brought back Bill C-2, it included Bill C-10, Bill C-32, Bill C-35, Bill C-27 and Bill C-22, all of which we supported. We supported and looked to accelerate Bill C-14, Bill C-15, Bill C-25 and C-26.

That is the record of Liberals in this session of Parliament on crime, not to mention the Liberal record of reducing crime every year that we were in office previously.

Today I was doing an Atlantic radio talk show with a Conservative member of Parliament who ascribed the motive to the Liberal Party that we did not care about crime, that we are soft on criminals, and that we like to let people get away with things. I will say one thing about the Conservatives. I think that they believe what they say. I think that they honestly believe that these policies will work, even though they have failed. Even though Republicans have tried them and they have been utter disasters, I do believe that the Conservatives think they will work.

However, to ascribe motive to this side of the House and to say that we somehow care less about the safety of our communities is disingenuous. To say that I care less about the safety of my children, family or community is unacceptable. This debate needs to be about who has the best approach to crime.

I would suggest that we have the best approach to stop crime before it happens, to build safe communities, to ensure we strike the right balance between being tough on those who commit serious crimes, but, most important, working with every ounce of our bodies to ensure those who begin to turn down dark paths have people who step in and intervene to ensure they do not commit those crimes in the first place. That is the type of approach we advocate on crime and it is one that I am proud of.

Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find that comment by the member opposite very curious. I will start my comments by saying that I think he has forgotten who caused the last election. It was in fact the Prime Minister who walked over to the Governor General's residence and precipitated the last election, therefore killing every bill on the order paper, including a bill dealing with this very matter which was introduced by the Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I find the member's comment curious that he is blaming the frequency of elections, every single one of which the Conservatives precipitated in the last two instances, and using that as an excuse for why this was not adopted.

A point that bears mentioning is that in 2005 the Liberal Party introduced the modernization of investigative techniques act, which is essentially the same bill that we are working with here today. With very minor modifications, it is essentially the same legislation, so why would it take four years essentially to deal with the same bill that we had written so many years ago?

The member talked about things like voice over Internet protocol in terms of changes to Internet service provisions. All of those things were present four years ago when that work was done, yet the government refused to introduce it. Even recently, when this was brought back, the decision that was made by the government was to bring it in at the end of the last session. It was in the last week immediately leading up to the summer recess when suddenly this was a priority put on the order paper. It languished there for months and months and now the government is bringing it back. And the Conservatives have the audacity to try to talk about us delaying bills. The Conservatives themselves have had their crime bills sitting on the order paper, not only for months but in some instances for years, only to bring them back when they are a hit politically.

What they do is when there is a scandal, the most recent one being the cheque scandal, they decide to resurrect their crime bills that they have been ignoring for months on end. Suddenly it is an imperative national priority to deal with whatever particular crime bill they put on the table at that particular moment, when we all know that the real objective is to change the political channel away from whatever political troubles they are having. In this particular instance, it is the cheque fiasco. As this bill has been ignored and ignored and left to languish and we have been calling again and again for it to be dealt with, we can know that is essentially what their strategy is.

Now they have come to this bill and said that it is important to deal with it but only after we have been pushing for it for four years. I hope something does not distract them and we do not find this bill suddenly being lost yet again.

It is important to mention that the bill we have been advocating for the last four years is badly needed by police. Technology has changed and evolved in many different ways. While criminals have evolved with it, our legislation simply has not. For the last number of years while the Conservatives have been sitting on this, whether the criminals are involved in cyber fraud or are using technology like BlackBerries in the commission of crimes, to which the police cannot get access, the criminals have had a huge advantage against the law enforcement agencies.

One of the areas in which they have had a great advantage is in their anonymity. People are able to do things on line and police are not able to uncover who exactly they are, even if they know they are committing acts of a criminal nature. Police have been calling on us for years to change that and only now are the Conservatives bringing something forward to do something about it.

I have had many conversations with police, not just about things that were mentioned by the hon. member, but about other things, such as child pornography. Obviously child pornography is a deep concern and we want to root that out and give police every tool to be able to go after those individuals. I have also spoken with the police about instances where a criminal is known to have a particular phone and his whereabouts cannot be ascertained. The police want to be able to use the GPS tracking device in that device in order to figure out where the individual is. The current laws do not allow the police to do that.

I was talking to the chief of police in Calgary who was expressing deep frustration at the number of dial-a-dope operations. Individuals are using cell phones almost like a pizza service to deliver drugs to people's doors. When the police find these cell phones they are unable to access them because of the encryption software. The maker of the device is under no obligation to help open it up to reveal all of the phone numbers and the client base. It is a crime that is almost impossible to catch someone doing because it is locked behind that wall of encryption. That has been going on for years and the Conservatives have been refusing to give the police the tools they need to deal with it, even though solutions are present.

At the same time, it is important to mention that one of the things we are going to have to look at and study in committee is to ensure that there is balance. A number of people have expressed concerns that a law of this nature could be misused to allow access into people's searching history and people's personal messages or could be used maliciously by somebody to gain access to people's Internet search records and history. We have to ensure that balance exists. We have to protect individual rights to protect people's freedom to do what they want without somebody being able to go through willy-nilly, without warrant, their information. At the same time, we have to provide police with the opportunities to chase those individuals who we have reasonable grounds to believe have committed a crime.

It is worth mentioning as we talk about this bill, that the Conservative approach to crime is, I think, in general, disingenuous. We listened all day today to speeches by members about how the Liberal Party had held up a variety of bills. Of course, factually, that is entirely incorrect.

If we were to talk about the Liberal Party record in this session of Parliament in terms of bills that we have supported and helped to accelerate, I can list the following: Bill C-2, which was an omnibus bill which included provisions from Bill C-10, Bill C-32, Bill C-35, Bill C-27, and Bill C-22; Bill C-14; Bill C-15; Bill C-25; and Bill C-26. It is important to mention that in every instance we tried to get those bills accelerated and pushed forward.

That does not stop the Conservatives from talking about other parties holding up their crime bills. The problem is the facts do not match their rhetoric. In this specific instance and many others, the reality is the exact opposite of what they have said. In many instances, the Conservative crime bills have been languishing on the order paper, forgotten. They are sitting there waiting to be implemented. The Conservatives are not waiting for the right time for the public interest, not waiting for the right time to ensure there is adequate information to get the bills passed, but they are waiting for the right political moment to put the bills forward to try to turn the political channel.

If that were not bad enough, the other reality is that they are fundamentally letting down the Canadian public by only offering one solution to crime, and that solution invariably is to lock up people.

I do not have any problem with the notion of tough sentences. We have to have harsh, stiff sentences for people who commit serious crimes. However, if tough sentences were the only answer, then places like Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, and Detroit would be some of the safest cities in North America. In fact, we know the opposite to be true.

The reality is that places with the stiffest sentences are more often than not some of the most dangerous cities in North America. Why? The Americans are being crushed under the weight of their own correctional system. They are literally in a position where there are so many people pouring into the prisons that they cannot possibly keep up with the costs of building all of the prisons, let alone the programs and services to ensure that people do not repeat offend. In fact, in California the situation has become so bad that its rate of recidivism is now 70%. They are creating crime factories. People go in for a minor crime and come out as a major criminal. It is like putting in a butter knife and getting out a machine gun.

That is the strategy the Conservatives are trying to bring here: a failed Republican strategy in dealing with crime that we know as a fact does not work. They are trying to apply it here to change the channel, to use it as a political game changer. If they are in trouble with the cheque fiasco, they talk about locking up people longer. If they are in trouble because a minister is caught in a fiscal indiscretion, they talk about locking people up longer. That is what they do.

I think most of them, I would hope most of them, realize that it is a disastrous strategy, that it leads to less safe communities, that it leads to billions of dollars in additional costs, and that it is exactly following down the road that even Republican governors say was a huge mistake to walk down. If anyone doubts that, I will point quickly to what has happened specifically with incarceration in the United States compared with Canada.

In 1981, before the United States began a similar agenda on which the Conservatives are now embarking, locking people up longer and longer, the gap between the rate of incarceration in Canada and the U.S. was much narrower. In Canada, 91 per 100,000 people were incarcerated, while the figure in the United States was 243 for every 100,000 people.

By 2001, Canada's rate had grown only slightly in terms of the number of people who were incarcerated, to 101 incarcerated for every 100,000 people, while in the United States that rate had soared to 689 for every 100,000, a rate almost 700% higher than that in Canada. In that same period of time, Canada and the U.S. had the same decline in their overall rate of crime. Imagine that.

The United States' rate of incarceration went up 500% over ours, and yet over that same period of time we had the identical reduction in the amount of crime. The only difference was that 500% more individuals were being incarcerated per 100,000 people, and it cost billions of dollars more.

In fact, if we continue to follow this model suggested by the Conservatives and we extrapolate to the same path that the Republicans took the United States, where they put them right to the brink, we are talking about roughly $9 billion a year in additional costs to have the same rate of incarceration.

As for the difference for public safety, well, unfortunately, I wish I could say it just kept it the same, that the only impact of that was the loss of $9 billion a year, but we all know that that $9 billion a year has to come from somewhere. We have already seen where the Conservatives' priorities are on crime. Let us take a look at the crime prevention budget.

Since 2005 the crime prevention budget has been slashed by more than 50%. That is actual spending. At the same time as they are increasing sentences and chasing after a failed Republican model, the Conservatives are slashing the money that is given to crime prevention. It is crazy. Anybody who would look at it objectively would say that this is a path to disaster, and yet that is exactly the road they have decided to head down.

There are opportunities here to be smarter on crime, to listen to police, to talk to them about what the real solutions are, to invest in prevention, to invest in making sure people turn down the right path instead of the wrong one. I had the opportunity to go around with the former chief of police in Regina and see a neighbourhood which is designated as one of the most dangerous in Canada. He was able to show me a home that had no septic system, no heat and where the child in that home was going to school hungry. That same child predictably, just scant years later, could be committing his or her first crime by starting to get involved in drugs.

For more than 60% of our inmates, addiction is the root cause of the problem and yet they do not get help. They get thrown into prison and forgotten about, and they come out worse because the core problem was never addressed. In this case it would be an addiction problem that sent them there. They go in for a minor crime, usually break and enter, and they have an addiction. They go into a system that is not providing them any rehabilitation services, and they come out and commit worse crimes. So goes the cycle. It is a constant cycle of things getting continually ever worse.

When we look at our prison system and we ask where these criminals come from, not often enough do we take a hard look at that. Imagine. Sixty per cent of those in prison face addiction issues. Over 10% face serious mental health issues. Not only are our prisons turning into crime factories, but the Conservatives are trying to use them as hospitals, by sending people with serious mental health issues into prisons. The prisons are so ill-equipped to deal with them that they are putting them in solitary confinement. They are often released directly from solitary confinement into the general population, only to reoffend again. Whether it is the facilities in St. John's, Grandview or different facilities across the country, we see this time and time again.

The reality here is we have a bill that has been called for by police for years. The government is only now finally bringing it forward, after its having been on the table since 2005. It is trying to use crime as a political game changer, misrepresenting what crime is really about and how to stop it, and at the same time it is taking us down a path that has been tried and failed before in the United States.

We need to do better than this. We need to be honest on crime and offer real solutions.

Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today in the House to address Bill C-42 regarding conditional sentences.

This legislation fulfills another campaign promise we made in the 2008 election by seeking to restrict the availability of conditional sentencing to ensure that those who commit serious crimes, including serious property offences, are not eligible for house arrest. This is a bill that is desperately needed as we attempt to send a strong message to criminals that serious crime will result in serious time.

My riding of South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale has been near the centre of a violent gang war in the lower mainland of British Columbia. Earlier this year hearing reportings of several shootings in a given week was not uncommon.

Many people, some gang members and some not, have been murdered or seriously injured in our streets this year. This gang warfare appears to be fuelled mostly by the illicit drug trade as rival gangs battle for a share of the profits.

As I am sure all members can appreciate, my constituents are upset and concerned about the extreme violence in our normally peaceful community. They want to know what action we are taking to keep illegal drug producers and pushers off the streets and behind bars. They want to know why criminals convicted of serious drug offences such as running a grow house, who are sometimes repeatedly convicted seem to be back on the street within days of their conviction.

They do not understand why someone convicted of serious crimes, offences often linked to the drug trade or involving a weapon or causing bodily harm, could serve literally no time in prison.

Bill C-42 is part of our answer. Our bill will close the loophole created by the opposition in the last Parliament by ensuring that the time served for all serious crimes is ineligible to be served under house arrest.

The proposed law will clearly state the offences for which the courts cannot hand down a conditional sentence.

This will ensure that the courts use conditional sentences cautiously and more appropriately, reserving them for less serious offences that pose little risk to community safety.

Bill C-42 is needed because our government's previous attempt to prevent the use of house arrest for serious crimes was seriously and significantly weakened by opposition amendments.

In addition to maintaining the existing criteria limiting the availability of house arrest, Bill C-42 would make all offences punishable by a maximum of 14 years or life ineligible for house arrest. It would make all offences prosecuted by indictment, as well as those punishable by a maximum of 10 years, those resulting in bodily harm or involving the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs, and those involving the use of weapons, ineligible for house arrest. It would also make specific serious property and violent offences ineligible for house arrest.

Here are some of the other offences for which house arrest would be eliminated when prosecuted by indictment: prison breach, luring a child, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping or forcible confinement, trafficking in persons where there is a material benefit, abduction, theft over $5,000, auto theft, breaking and entering with intent, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, or arson for fraudulent purposes.

When I read this list, I am reminded that the last time we debated this issue, these were all crimes for which the Liberals felt that house arrest might be an entirely appropriate punishment. Well, this is no longer the case. Bill C-42 will send the message that drug crime, gun crime and other serious crime will not be tolerated in Surrey or anywhere else in Canada. It will send a message to those engaged in the illegal drug trade in my community that their crimes will no longer be treated with a slap on the wrist.

This bill and other initiatives to come will ensure that cases of serious fraud are treated as serious offences, which includes the proposal in Bill C-42 to prohibit the use of conditional sentences in such cases.

It is also disturbing to note that by promoting the definition of serious personal injury at the expense of the government's approach, the opposition parties are saying that only violent offences are serious and that the limits on the use of conditional sentences should apply only to such offences.

Do I need to remind them of the extent of the frauds recently reported in the media?

Unfortunately, it has become very plain to me that our Conservative Party is the only party that has been willing to stand on principle and ensure that the sentence matches the crime. Opposition parties stall criminal justice reform legislation here in the House or their friends stall it in the Senate.

It is no exaggeration to say that in this Parliament and the last, we have been opposed every step of the way by the Liberals or the NDP and the Bloc as we have attempted to pass even modest reforms to sentencing laws. For instance, the opposition Liberals watered down our bill, Bill C-9 on house arrest, in the last Parliament. Even so, I note that since taking office in 2006, our Conservative government has been making progress on some criminal justice reform, including house arrest, despite the minority situation.

We provided the funds and introduced the legislation that will support our law enforcement bodies and justice system as they attempt to crack down on gun violence and the illegal drug trade. In our first budget, we provided the funds to hire an additional 1,000 RCMP officers and new federal prosecutors to focus on such law enforcement priorities as drugs, corruption, and border security, including gun smuggling.

Also, in our 2006 budget we provided the funds to hire an additional 400 Canada border services officers, to properly arm all of these officers, and to improve border infrastructure and upgrade technology. Our efforts have improved the ability of our Border Services Agency to crack down on the smuggling of firearms and illegal drugs, which are significant problems in our community.

In 2007, we launched the national anti-drug strategy, focusing on prevention, enforcement and treatment. Budget 2007 also provided $64 million over two years to address these priorities.

In budget 2008, we provided $400 million for the police officers recruitment fund, allowing the provinces to recruit an additional 2,500 front-line officers. My province of British Columbia received $53 million of this funding.

In terms of legislation, during the last Parliament we were able to pass bills that addressed the issues of gun and gang violence. Among the resulting measures were increases in the mandatory minimum sentences for various crimes involving firearms and the toughening of dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code.

We also imposed a reverse onus in order for those charged with firearms offences to qualify for bail, and we toughened sentences for street racing and increased the maximum sentence to be life in prison. However, our Conservative government knows that further federal action is necessary to help address the gang violence we have seen on the streets in my community recently.

Our public safety minister, our justice minister and our Prime Minister have all travelled to the Lower Mainland in British Columbia to hear directly from police officials and victims groups about the recent violence. We have listened and responded by introducing the following legislation.

Bill C-14, now law, targets gangs and organized crime groups. Any murder committed in a gang-related context is deemed first degree murder. A new criminal offence carrying a mandatory prison sentence has been created for drive-by shootings.

Bill C-15 cracks down on serious drug crimes, such as trafficking and running large cannabis grow operations or crystal meth labs. Narcotics producers will now face mandatory prison sentences.

In addition, Bill C-25 eliminates the two-for-one credit in sentencing for time spent in pre-trial custody. Of course, the bill that we are debating today, Bill C-42, would eliminate house arrest for all serious crimes, not just some of the offences the opposition begrudgingly allowed us to address in the last Parliament.

For the reasons I have given, I would urge my colleagues in the House to support this bill unanimously in order to expedite its passage.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of you for being here.

I have a couple of things. Chief Beazley, you appeared before our committee on Bill C-14, which dealt with organized crime. It was a bill that our government brought forward. I'm sure you're all aware that the bill has passed into law. We have several other initiatives now.

It dealt with drive-by shootings, reckless discharge of a firearm in a public place, and the use of firearms for intimidation by criminals. It was targeted at organized gang violence, street-level gang violence--some of the typical scenarios we're hearing about in some large centres in Canada. You mentioned them in your remarks, even with regard to Halifax.

At the time, you mentioned the need for us to improve the intercept tools police have because of the complexity of criminal investigations. I know that our Minister of Justice has been asked whether we are trying to get ahead of the criminals, and he says, no, we're just trying to catch up to where they are when it comes to technology.

You were there in April. Then in June of this year, we introduced two pieces of legislation. One deals with investigative powers for the 21st century. That's Bill C-46. The other is Bill C-47, technical assistance for law enforcement in the 21st century. Without going into all the details of both bills, they deal with the interception capabilities of police when dealing with organized crime.

I'd like, maybe, Chief, or Superintendent Brennan, your comments on where you think things are going next. Do you think it's important that we constantly be monitoring these things to try to at least keep up if not get ahead of where these guys are, because technology seems to be changing so quickly?

What are some of the limitations you see in your ability when it comes specifically to organized crime? That's what we're studying today. What are some of the techniques you see them using that are causing you difficulty?

Opposition Motion--Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the opposition day motion moved by the hon. member for Wascana, the Liberal House leader.

The motion recognizes the role of the House in ensuring government accountability. As we know, that is the primary function of Parliament in our Westminster system.

More specifically, the motion at hand calls for three things: first, that the Standing Orders of the House be changed with respect to the scheduling of allotted days this fall; second, that the House calendar be altered to accommodate the G20 meetings in September; and third, that the government table an additional report on the implementation of the 2009 budget.

I will touch on these three points very briefly, as it is the government's intention to support the motion. I will devote the remainder of my remarks to a more general discourse on the successful functioning of Parliament and my experiences of this past session.

The opposition day motion provides for a change to the rules of Parliament with regard to how the government may allocate opposition days this fall. Since coming to office in 2006, as a general rule our government has always tried to evenly distribute the opposition days in the parliamentary calendar. In certain circumstances we recognize that legislative priorities can force a deviation from this practice. However, we do support the idea of amending the Standing Orders to ensure that this usual practice becomes a rule.

The second provision of today's opposition day motion provides for a change to the House calendar for the fall of 2009. Under this provision the House would open a week earlier than currently scheduled and it would then adjourn for the week of September 21. This will enable the government to focus on the G20 meetings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on September 24 and 25.

The G20 is the chief forum for the world leaders, as a group, to address issues resulting from the global economic crisis, and Canada has played an active and important role in these discussions. At the fall G20 meetings, the Prime Minister and other world leaders will discuss progress in promoting economic recovery and they will consider new ways to address global economic and financial challenges.

I think we can all agree that there is no more pressing issue before Parliament than dealing with the global economic downturn, which has caused personal hardship and job loss around the world. Unfortunately, as we all know, Canada has not been immune.

Our legislative program of this past session has reflected that the economy is the number one issue for Canadians. As such, I am pleased to support a motion that permits the Government of Canada to give its undivided attention to the critical economic discussions that will be taking place at the G20 summit in September.

The third provision of today's opposition motion requests that the government table an additional report on the implementation of the 2009 budget. In the face of global economic uncertainty, this government presented a budget in January with a comprehensive economic action plan to stimulate economic growth, restore confidence and support Canadians and their families during this global recession.

This economic recovery program is unprecedented in our history, and it is working. Canada was the last group of seven country to enter recession and the International Monetary Fund expects that we will have the strongest recovery coming out of it.

The government has also taken unprecedented steps in reporting on our economic action plan. We tabled an initial budget report in March. A week ago we tabled a second budget report, which outlines how 80% of the measures in our economic action plan are already being implemented. This government welcomes the opportunity provided by today's opposition day motion to table a third budget report in September. In fact, we committed to such a report in our budget presentation earlier this past winter.

The Minister of Finance announced at the time that he would be tabling an economic report in the fall. This being the case, I commend the official opposition for echoing the government's pre-existing intention and commitment to provide quarterly reports on the economy in and through the House to all Canadians. As we debate this today, I think it is important to remember that the government was already committed to providing that report in September.

As all members in the House know, the last few weeks have not been easy in this place. In fact they have not been easy on Canadians from coast to coast to coast. During this time of economic challenge, Canadians did not want to hear about the possibility of an election. Canadians want us to continue to work to achieve results for them. They know we cannot afford an election, which would put Canada's economic recovery at risk, halt stimulus investment across the country and limit our ability to continue to implement our economic action plan for Canadians.

By avoiding an election, we have enabled the government to continue its course of doing everything possible to turn this global recession around on our own soil. The cooperation we have seen emerge over this week, spearheaded by our Prime Minister, has not only avoided a costly and unwanted election but has clearly demonstrated to Canadians that their Parliament can work for them.

Despite the partisan political drama played out during the daily 45 minutes of question period, Canadians may be surprised to know just how cooperative and productive this past session of Parliament has been. Since January, our government has worked with all opposition parties to advance many important bills that will help Canadian families. We have moved forward on our electoral commitments, and I am pleased that much more has been done.

Since January, the government has introduced a total of 54 bills. By the time the Senate adjourns for the summer next week, I expect we will have royal assent on 26 of those bills, including such important legislative initiatives as Bill C-33, which will restore war veterans' allowances to allied veterans and their families; Bill C-29, to guarantee an estimated $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and co-operatives; Bill C-3, to promote the economic development of Canada's north; Bill C-28, to increase the governance capacity of first nations in Canada; and Bill C-14, a critically important justice bill to fight the scourge of organized crime.

Although much work has been accomplished, a good number of bills that continue to be priorities of our government remain on the order paper, including Bill C-6, to enact Canada's consumer product safety act to help protect the health and safety of all Canadians; Bill C-8, to provide first nations women on reserve with the same rights and protections enjoyed by all other Canadians; and Bill C-23, to open new doors for trade between Canada and Colombia.

Furthermore, our government has continued to demonstrate an unwavering commitment to fighting crime and violence in this country. Our justice minister, the hon. member for Niagara Falls, has been unrelenting in his determination to hold criminals accountable and protect victims and law-abiding Canadian citizens.

Over a dozen justice related bills have been introduced since the beginning of this parliamentary session, which include Bill C-15, Bill C-26 and Bill S-4, to help fight crimes related to criminal organizations, such as drug-related offences, identity theft and auto theft; Bill C-25, which will return truth in sentencing and eliminate the two for one credit; Bill C-36, which will repeal the faint hope clause, and Bill C-19, the new anti-terrorism bill.

Unfortunately none of these bills have completed the legislative process during this session of Parliament. Again, due to the leadership of our Prime Minister, thankfully our country will not be plunged into an election and these bills will remain on the order paper. We hope to pass them into law in the fall.

I look forward to continuing the spirit of cooperation in this place in September to accomplish this unfinished business for all Canadians. Five of these bills have already passed one chamber of Parliament and they are before the second House for consideration. On behalf of vulnerable Canadians in particular, we have to keep moving to get the job done on this important legislation.

In closing, I am pleased that the government has been able to develop today's opposition day motion in cooperation with the official opposition. This House of Commons should more often focus on what all of us have in common rather than what divides us. While I would have liked to have seen some debate on some of our newer bills that we have just introduced and passed more of our justice and safety bills, this parliamentary sitting is winding down in the age-old Canadian tradition of compromise.

We all know that this place is about debate, trade-offs, negotiations and compromise. This is how Parliament works. This is how our very country was born, has grown and continues to develop and flourish.

As I have already indicated, the government will be supporting today's motion. I again salute our Prime Minister for his leadership in staving off an election, which I think would be dreaded by the vast majority of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I wish you, and all colleagues in this House, a very happy summer.

[Andrew Griffith, Director General, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

My name is Andrew Griffith. I am the director general of citizenship and multiculturalism branch at Citizenship and Immigration Canada. As the chair noted, I am accompanied by my colleagues Rick Stewart and Nicole Girard. We appear in connection with your study of the subject matter of Bill C-37.

As you know, Bill C-37 was passed unanimously by both Houses of Parliament, received royal assent on April 17, 2008, and was implemented a year later on April 17, 2009.

In the past, the committee had expressed concern about implementing the law within a year and raising awareness about the new law. Today, I would like to take a moment to briefly describe the legislative amendments, the implementation efforts and steps taken to communicate those changes to the public.

I'd also like to address the situation of individuals who did not obtain citizenship and whose situation merited special consideration.

Because of the demonstrated need for stability, simplicity, and consistency in citizenship status, what follows is the basic outline of the amendments provided in Bill C-37.

Mr. Chair, these amendments restore or give Canadian citizenship to many who never had it or who lost it due to previous laws; limit Canadian citizenship to the first generation born to Canadian parents outside Canada; and allow people adopted outside Canada by Canadian parents between January 1, 1947, and February 14, 1977, to apply for a grant of citizenship. This expands on the provision implemented in December 2007 to allow children adopted outside Canada by Canadian parents since February 15, 1977, to apply directly for citizenship without first having to become permanent residents, also known as Bill C-14.

Under the old rules, it was possible for Canadians to pass on their citizenship to endless generations born outside Canada. To protect the value of Canadian citizenship for the future, the new law limits citizenship by descent to one generation born outside Canada, similar to rules in other countries like the UK and New Zealand.

This means that children born to Canadian parents in the first generation outside Canada will be Canadian at birth only if one parent was born in Canada or one parent became a Canadian citizen by immigrating to Canada and was later granted citizenship, also known as naturalization.

Canadian citizens who have children born outside of Canada who are not eligible for automatic citizenship may be eligible to sponsor them for permanent residence, and once in Canada they can apply for citizenship. This of course includes children who are stateless. Stateless children who are unable to obtain a travel document may be issued a single-journey travel document by the department to enable them to come to Canada.

As an additional safeguard against statelessness, Bill C-37 contained a provision for a grant of citizenship for children who were born outside Canada to a Canadian parent, who were born stateless, and who have always been stateless. These persons are not required to become permanent residents; however, three years' residence in Canada is required in order to access a grant under this provision. This provision meets Canada's obligations under the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

While Bill C-37 restored or granted citizenship to the majority of those who lost citizenship or who never had it due to outdated provisions in past legislation, there may be individuals who did not obtain citizenship and whose situations may merit special consideration. Individuals who lost citizenship and who do not qualify under Bill C-37 may either apply for permanent residence and then for citizenship, or request consideration for a discretionary grant of citizenship without going through the immigration process.

I understand that concerns were raised by witnesses at last week's standing committee meeting about the use of the discretionary powers under section 5(4) to resolve citizenship anomaly cases not covered by Bill C-37.

On May 29, 2007, when announcing her intention to table legislation to deal with lost Canadians, then Minister Diane Finley acknowledged that the legislative proposals would not resolve all cases. She said, “Those rare cases where the facts turn on circumstance of birth outside Canada prior to January 1, 1947, and where citizenship is in doubt, would remain”.

She went on: “Given the variety of individual circumstances in these cases, I believe that we must continue the current approach—to judge each case on its merits, and as warranted, use the powers available to me as minister to bestow special grants of citizenship under subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act.”

The section 5(4) provision of the Citizenship Act addresses exceptional cases. Each of these cases is considered on its own merit. Since decisions to grant citizenship rest with the Governor in Council, there is no guarantee that an application will be approved.

Since 2007, 184 lost Canadian cases have been approved by the Governor in Council for a discretionary grant of citizenship. This includes 104 in 2007, 69 in 2008 and 11 in 2009. The total number of 5(4) grants for 2009 is 21 to date—this includes lost Canadians as well as all others.

We are aware of concerns that this exceptional authority is not being used enough. However, generally speaking, anyone who has never been Canadian, who has not lived here for many years, or who has never lived here and has a citizenship of another country in which they have resided most of their life likely does not have a strong case for the exceptional use of this discretionary authority to grant citizenship. However, where appropriate, given the facts of the case, an exceptional grant of citizenship has been made or we have made other arrangements, such as issuing temporary residence permits.

The department has taken numerous steps to prepare for the implementation of Bill C-37, including the development of regulations, policies, and procedures; manual updates; new application forms and kits; and changes to the global case management system to enable processing, training for staff, and the implementation of an innovative and cost-effective communications strategy to promote awareness of the changes.

CIC staff, including case officers and call-centre agents, have been trained in the new law. As part of its communications strategy, CIC has taken steps to ensure that the new rules are reaching Canadians inside and outside Canada.

The CIC has used a wide variety of channels to spread the word on the new law, including building a web landing page, www.cic.gc.ca/citizenship; reaching out to federal partners such as Passport Canada, Service Canada, and DFAIT; and getting the provinces and territories to use their channels to inform clientele of citizenship changes.

CIC has also used an innovative approach, disseminating the message on the changes through social marketing, including designing and implementing a YouTube video called Waking up Canadian. The video features a man who literally wakes up Canadian on April 17, 2009, and directs people to CIC's website for more information on the changes. The video has had over 185,000 hits.

CIC partnered with the Canadian embassy in Washington to raise awareness of the changes among Canadians living in the United States. The embassy helped us spread the word through organizations like Connect to Canada, a virtual network of more than 43,000 people who share a link to Canada, many of whom are Canadian expats.

CIC has also implemented an online self-assessment tool on its website to give people an idea, through a series of questions and answers, whether they are likely citizens under the new law. Close to 110,000 people have used the self-assessment tool.

Because we do not know exactly how many individuals will be affected by these changes, nor where they live, the video is proving to be an effective and low-cost way of drawing people to the CIC website for more information.

Thank you. That concludes my statement. My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer your questions.

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act

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

moved that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate today on Bill C-36, a bill to increase sentencing for the most serious crimes.

The Criminal Code amendments I am proposing have two objectives. First, with these amendments, those convicted of murder and high treason will no longer be able to apply for parole under the faint hope clause. Consequently, someone who commits such an offence on or after the day of coming into force of these Criminal Code amendments will no longer be able to apply for early parole after serving 15 years of a life sentence. These people will no longer be able to apply for early parole. In short, the faint hope clause will no longer apply to those convicted of high treason or murder.

As many members know, in Canadian prisons, a large number of those serving life sentences for murder have the right to apply under the faint hope clause or may be able to do so in the next few years. They will retain that right. Second, the amendments will also restrict the application procedure in order to set aside less deserving applications and to establish restrictions as to when and how many times an offender can submit an application under the faint hope clause.

These new restrictions will apply to offenders who are already serving a life sentence, those about to be sentenced to life imprisonment and those charged but not yet convicted of first-degree or second-degree murder or high treason. These restrictions will apply to such murderers as Paul Bernardo, if he were to attempt, after the new rules come into force, to make an application under the faint hope clause. People like Paul Bernardo will find it even more difficult to obtain an early parole and will have fewer opportunities to apply.

By proposing these changes to the Criminal Code in order to prevent anyone who commits a murder after the provisions take effect from applying for parole under the faint hope clause, and by tightening up the application procedure for those already in the system, we are acknowledging the suffering of the families and loved ones of murder victims.

These changes will save families the pain of attending multiple parole eligibility hearings and having to relive over and over again the intense emotions that are brought up by seeing the person who turned their lives upside down and took the life of someone close to them.

The changes we are proposing also take into account the concerns of Canadians, who are shocked to learn that, through the faint hope clause, the sentence given when a murderer is found guilty is not always the sentence he will serve. I would like to add that these changes show, once again, that this government is determined to protect Canadians by ensuring that the most dangerous criminals serve their full sentences.

As the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière said last week outside the House, the proposed changes are another example of our government delivering on its commitment to strengthening Canada's criminal justice system and following through on our tackling crime agenda, by standing up for victims of crime, and putting the rights of law-abiding citizens ahead of the rights of criminals.

I would like to talk about this in a little more detail, since I think it is important for members to have some background on these proposals.

As it stands, under the Criminal Code, anyone who is found guilty of high treason or murder in the first or second degree, must be sentenced to imprisonment for life with a long period before being eligible for parole. In the case of first-degree murder or high treason, an offender who is found guilty must serve 25 years before being eligible to apply to the National Parole Board for parole.

In the case of second-degree murder, the offender must serve 10 years of the sentence before applying for parole. However, there are two circumstances under which the ineligibility period may be extended. First, if an offender is found guilty of an offence under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, the ineligibility period is 25 years, the same as for first-degree murder. Second, a sentencing judge who decides to increase the ineligibility period because of the murderer's character, the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the perpetration of the offence or any recommendation of the jury may determine that the period is to end after 10 to 25 years of the sentence have been served.

Under the Criminal Code's faint hope clause, those who commit high treason or murder may apply for their parole ineligibility period to be reduced after serving 15 years of their sentence. Currently, applying is a three-stage process. Procedural changes proposed in Bill C-36 would modify each of those stages.

The three stages are as follows. First, the applicant presents an application to a superior court judge, who reviews the case, then decides whether the applicant can move on to the next stage. In the current system, if the judge finds that the applicant has shown that there is a reasonable prospect that the application will succeed, the judge authorizes the applicant to move on to the next stage.

Some courts have said that it is relatively easy for an applicant to meet the review criteria, so we are changing them to make it harder for offenders to meet the criteria. From now on, offenders will have to show that there is a substantial likelihood that the application will succeed. This criterion will exclude the least deserving applicants. If an applicant's application is rejected at the first stage, he may re-apply two years later, unless the judge has imposed a longer waiting period. We will increase that waiting period to five years.

In other words, an offender who is not eligible for parole for 25 years, for example, will be able to submit only two applications under the faint hope clause: the first after serving 15 years and the second after serving 20 years. For comparison's sake, the faint hope clause now permits offenders to apply five times: after serving 15 years, 17 years, 19 years, 21 years and 23 years of a sentence.

Changing that timeframe from two years to five years will allow victims' families to predict when a hearing under the faint hope clause will be held. This change will also reduce the trauma that is often felt as a result of these hearings.

At the second stage of the current process under the faint hope clause, applicants whose request is granted at the first stage must convince a 12-member jury that they should be allowed to apply for early parole. When the jury unanimously approves an applicant's request, it must indicate when the offender can apply for early parole. If the jury rejects an applicant's request, he may apply again two years later, to a judge, unless the jury has specified a longer period of time. We will also increase that timeframe to five years.

Thus, after the period of time stipulated by the jury, an applicant whose request is approved may move on to the third stage, that is, applying to the National Parole Board for early parole.

Under the current legislation, offenders can apply for parole under the faint hope clause anytime after serving 15 years of their sentence. We will change that, making applications under the faint hope clause subject to a three-month time limit for filing. This means that offenders who are eligible to apply for parole under the faint hope clause must do so within three months of their eligibility date. If they fail to do so for whatever reason within the three-month timeframe, they must wait the full five years before they can apply.

As I mentioned earlier, the procedural changes I have just described, the strict eligibility requirements, the new three-month deadline for applying and the five-year waiting period will apply only to offenders already in the system. In other words, these changes will apply only to offenders who have committed murder, are arrested for murder or are convicted of murder before the amendments take effect. Offenders who commit murder after this bill comes into force will not be able to take advantage of the faint hope regime.

Since the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code is incorporated by reference in the National Defence Act, all the proposed changes I have just described will apply to members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted of a serious offence under that act.

Before I conclude, I would like to remind the members of this House about the controversy that has swirled around the faint hope clause for a long time and that gave rise to the amendments proposed in Bill C-36.

Since the first application was made under this regime in 1987, Canadians have repeatedly made the point that the faint hope clause seems to allow people convicted of the most serious crimes to serve less time than they were sentenced to.

Ordinary Canadians have a hard time understanding how the most violent offenders—murderers—can get early parole, when the fundamental objectives of sentencing are to denounce unlawful conduct, deter the offender from committing other offences and protect society by keeping convicted criminals off the streets.

In short, the existence of the faint hope regime and the apparent ease with which people convicted of the worst crimes imaginable can take advantage of it erode public confidence in the integrity of the justice system. They also undermine the government's commitment to enhance the safety and security of Canadians by keeping violent offenders in custody for longer periods.

Our government is taking action to deliver on its commitment to ensure that offenders who are found guilty of a crime serve a sentence that reflects the severity of that crime. Our government is also respecting its commitment to ensure there is truth in sentencing. Canadians will no longer wonder how a murderer who was supposed to be serving a sentence with a parole ineligibility period could be released early.

The issues related to sentencing are complex, and the current government believes they are very important. The proposed changes are necessary. Canadians have demanded that we make them. Many people believe that too often, offenders seem to fall through the cracks of the Canadian justice system without serving their full sentence. Canadians, myself included, think that the sentence imposed, including the applicable parole ineligibility period, should be served in full.

The approach set out in Bill C-36 will restore people's faith in our justice system. For years now, Canadians have been telling us that they want a strong criminal justice system. They want us to take decisive measures to fight the growing threat of violent crime by passing laws that will keep our communities safe. Our government has promised to tackle crime and improve safety, and we have kept that promise by proposing significant measures, such as the Tackling Violent Crime Act.

Recently, in Bill C-14, we proposed measures to fight organized crime. In Bill C-15, we proposed measures to apply mandatory minimum penalties to serious drug-related crimes. We are justifiably proud of these measures and the many other changes we have proposed. As we have said in the House, we are protecting the interests of Canadians who urged us to get tough on crime.

We are asking the members of the House to help us make our communities safer. We are asking for the support of members on both sides of the House to pass this legislative measure as quickly as possible. Let us focus on protecting Canadians and restoring their faith in the justice system by adopting the measures set out in Bill C-36, which will help to eliminate what many have called a loophole for those sentenced to life.

Bill C-36 would get rid of that loophole by striking a fair balance between respect for the law and respect for the rights of family members and victims. I urge all of my colleagues to support our proposed legislation.

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He continued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

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

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

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

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

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

The government is committed to acting responsibly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[Dr. Matt Logan]

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

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

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

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

Would any of you care to comment on those?

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

Thanks to all of you for coming here today.

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

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

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

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

Good morning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Code

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I mentioned, the Liberal Party supported this bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C-14 proposes amendments in four broad areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

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

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

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

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bloc Québécois

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

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

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

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

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

Opposition Motion—Gun Control

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

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

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

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

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice and Human Rights

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

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

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

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

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

[Randall Richmond]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention.

[C/Supt Ross Bingley, Bureau Commander, Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau, Ontario Provincial Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much for having me here today.

The Ontario Provincial Police supports all initiatives that enhance public safety. The Ontario Provincial Police welcomes the intent of the changes to section 270, the offence with respect to assaulting peace officers, but believes the changes would be more adequate if the new sentencing provided had a minimum sentence.

Public safety may be enhanced with the extension of recognizance conditions for a two-year period if imposed conditions can be monitored for breaches. The working group looking at policing justice strategies to address this issue of the repeat violent offender may wish to review the provision as to its potential use with respect both to intelligence and to containment.

Available policing capacity to use this provision is a factor that will need to be considered. Policing capacity and available resources may limit knowledge as to breaches of accused persons, weakening the effectiveness of the amendment as a public safety tool. The OPP's ROE, ROPE, and SAT units could assume this role if additional resources were applied.

The Ontario Provincial Police strongly supports current provincial strategies and initiatives--examples are the Toronto anti-violence initiative, the provincial anti-violence initiative, and the guns and gangs initiative--in addressing these types of offences. Policing has received strong government support in these areas.

The OPP believes that other federal legislation and policy proposals brought forward by policing bodies, including the OPP, would enhance the policing of organized crime, gangs, and serious drug-related crime. Areas previously discussed, such as lawful access, amendments to the Firearms Act, and a national gun strategy, are some examples.

In addition, the OPP supports evidence-based programs that prevent youths from joining gangs. Implementation of the recommendations of the LeSage report hopefully will provide a framework that enables all justice system processes to work in a more efficient manner. The OPP recommends that justice sector partners work together on pretrial motions and disclosure to assist in this area.

The new first-degree organized crime murder offence has updated current legislation to address the risk to public safety from gangs. OPP experience in regard to criminal organization offences is that they are very difficult to successfully litigate and require a lengthy amount of investigative time. Use of this offence could lead to challenges, significantly prolonging the final disposition of a case and likely increasing officer time associated with court appearances and evidence. However, we hope that with the recommendations of the LeSage report and the Justice on Target initiative, these issues may be offset.

Prior rulings relating to criminal organization crime have found that the definition of the term “criminal organization” is overly broad. It may be easier to prove second-degree murder in cases than to provide evidence that would end up in a guilty finding for a first-degree murder offence.

The possibility of a life sentence may lead to greater use of witness intimidation by offenders, increasing the challenge for police in identifying guilty persons. If so, the amount of time spent investigating gang-related murders would obviously increase.

A life sentence may provide family and the public with a sense of justice being served; however, victims' families and the public may believe and come to expect that more punitive retribution is also appropriate as a crime deterrence strategy. Jurisprudence that overturns mandatory sentences may make the public regard the justice system as not working. A life sentence is not considered to be an effective deterrent but will prevent that offender from engaging in future offences. Experience has suggested to us that incarceration may not necessarily prevent an offender from continuing to engage in criminal activities while incarcerated.

The new firearms offences will not likely deter public gunplay or drive-by shootings in larger urban areas, given the difficulty we've had in actually identifying the offenders. Other new offences could be effective in reducing these types of crimes. A handgun ban, for example, would provide an additional arrestable offence. The OPP has supported proclamation of the 2004 firearms marking regulations, legislation to address gaps given that possession and sale of gun parts is not regulated...nor any associated criminal liability and a prohibition of possessing ammunition or firearms in stipulated public areas.

Bill C-14 provides law enforcement with new tools for responding to gang violence; however, enhancing community safety ultimately requires both apprehensions and convictions. Solutions include providing police with more resources and other legislative tools and policies that will assist in increasing arrests and convictions, as police have requested, in such areas as lawful access. The gun and gang initiative has been very successful in the province in Ontario. By way of example, in 2006, murders in Ontario declined almost 14%, shooting murders declined by 44%, and shooting occurrences in general fell by 15.9%.

On adding weapons or injury provisions, or in some cases duplicating existing offences, bodily harm and aggravated assault are serious offences with lengthy penalties. Police officers as victims should be an aggravating factor that leads to lengthier sentences regardless of the specific offence. The impact of the breaches of the new recognizance conditions is not known. It will be the judge who decides if a person being released under the new recognizance provisions must report to the police or to Correctional Services.

Certain conditions, such as electronic monitoring, are now clearly permitted, and a peace bond may be for up to 24 months. It is expected that conditions may be used more consistently. However, it is the police who will be responsible for bringing forward any information to trigger the amended recognizance provision. Police also have the authority to arrest an individual without warrant if they believe a designated offence is likely to occur. To act on this authority requires happenstance, intelligence, or surveillance. Recognizance provisions represent a potential tool that police could consider as benefit and cost.

Surveillance may support warrantless arrests, enhancing public safety and providing other valuable intelligence. Police would require additional capacity to effectively monitor individuals released under these recognizance conditions. The OPP's ROPE, SAT and ROE units have the skills required, but they have little capacity to monitor persons in these high-risk areas. The OPP's repeat offender enforcement strategy, which continues to monitor high-risk offenders after their release into communities, is effective, but again, it has become a capacity issue.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order. This is the fourteenth meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, on Monday, April 20, 2009.

You have before you the agenda for today. We're continuing our review of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants). I'm hoping that we'll be able to complete clause-by-clause review of the bill at the end of this meeting.

I understand that Monsieur Ménard has a point of order to make at the beginning of our meeting.

Truth in Sentencing Act

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines.

It is a privilege for me to speak to Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody).

As members may know, my riding of South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale has been directly affected by the shootings and gang war that has erupted in the Lower Mainland. My constituents are extremely concerned about the ongoing violence and complete disregard gang members have in our community. As the police have clearly indicated, much of this gang warfare is directly related to the drug trade. The guns being used are often smuggled across the border and purchased with the profits from the drug trade, or traded for drugs. Ensuring truth in sentencing, as Bill C-25 would help do, is an important step in ending British Columbia's gang war.

Every member of Parliament brings some experience in other professions and trades to his or her job here. Before I was elected, I served as an attorney for the B.C. legal services. I saw firsthand the impact drugs are having on our young people. I saw firsthand how many young people would turn to a life of crime to feed their drug habits and addictions. Drugs are often the gateway to crime for many career criminals. That is why I feel so strongly that we need to crack down on those who attempt to profit at the expense of our young people. Ensuring that drug pushers and gangsters serve a sentence that matches the seriousness of their crime is an important part of combatting the drug trade.

Upon taking office, our government committed itself to tackling crime and making our streets safer. Our commitment included preventing courts from giving extra credit for pretrial custody for persons denied bail because of their criminal record or for having violated bail.

Under the current system, courts typically take into account certain factors, such as overcrowding in remand centres, lack of rehabilitative programs commonly available in sentence custody, and the fact that time spent in remand does not count toward parole eligibility. This has resulted in courts traditionally awarding a two-for-one credit for time served in pretrial custody.

Now, on rare occasions, the credit awarded has been as high as three for one, especially where the conditions of detention were poor, for example, because of extreme crowding. Although also rare, credit has sometimes been less than two for one where offenders were unlikely to obtain early parole because of their criminal record or because of time spent in remand as a result of a breach of bail conditions.

The general practice of awarding generous credit for time spent in pre-sentencing has resulted in correctional authorities straining to cope with the growing number of people who are held in remand. In many cases, the population in remand centres now exceeds the population found in sentence custody in Canada's provincial and territorial jails.

Provincial attorneys general and correctional ministers have expressed concerns about the growing number of people being held in custody prior to sentencing. They strongly support limiting credit for time served as a way to help reduce the growing size of their remand population. Concerns have also been expressed that this practice has been abused by some accused who delay their trials and sentencing to earn double credit for the time spent in pretrial custody, thereby reducing their sentence.

Canadians have told us loud and clear that they would like to see more truth in sentencing.

I want to refer to a case that happened just last month in Toronto. A man convicted of manslaughter in the death of a nearly one-year-old baby found with 38 wounds was sentenced to six and a half years in prison. However, given that he has already served three years in pretrial detention since he was arrested for this killing, the two-for-one credit will guarantee that he is out on the streets within six months of his conviction.

One way of achieving truth in sentencing is to bring the practice of giving double time credit for pretrial custody to an end.

We are listening to the Canadian public in proposing this legislation. It would provide the courts with greater guidance in sentencing by limiting the amount of credit that courts may grant to convicted criminals for the time they served in custody prior to their sentencing. Bill C-25 would limit the credit ratio to two for one in all cases. However, where circumstances justify it, courts would be able to award a credit of up to one and a half days for every day spent in pre-sentencing custody. In such cases, the court would be required to provide an explanation for those circumstances. These circumstances are not defined in the bill. This is so the courts would have the discretion to consider on a case-by-case basis whether the credit to be awarded for the time spent in pre-sentencing custody should be more than one for one.

For example, we would expect a credit ratio of up to 1.5 to one would be considered where the conditions of detention and remand are extremely poor, or there is a complete absence of programming, or when the trial is unduly delayed by factors not attributable to the accused. However, where accused are remanded for having violated bail or because of their criminal record, the credit would be limited to one day for every day spent in pre-sentencing custody no matter what the remand conditions are.

As a result of this initiative, more offenders would now have a federal sentence of two years or more, and an increased number of offenders who would likely have been sentenced to a federal penitentiary would be spending longer time in federal custody. From a rehabilitation perspective, this time in the federal system would present the opportunity for longer term programming that may have a positive impact on the offender.

Bill C-25 also proposes to require courts to note the sentence that would have been imposed without the credit, the amount of credit awarded and the actual sentence imposed. This requirement would result in greater transparency and consistency and would improve public confidence in the administration of justice.

The proposed legislation is part of a series of criminal justice bills that has been introduced since we took office to help ensure the safety of Canadians. To make Canada safer, we have enacted legislation to get violent and dangerous criminals off our streets. We have cracked down on sexual predators, dangerous offenders and those who use guns to commit crimes. We have given the police more tools and resources to combat crime and to deal with those who drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

In the current session we have introduced Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants), which will provide law enforcement officials and the justice system a better means to address organized crime related activities, in particular, gang members and drive-by shootings.

Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, was introduced on February 27. It would provide for mandatory jail time for those who produce and sell illegal drugs. The reforms would, however, allow a drug treatment court to suspend a sentence while an addicted accused took an approved treatment program.

We have also introduced legislation in Bill S-4 to provide law enforcement officials with the tools they need to protect Canadian families and businesses from identity theft.

We will continue to introduce legislation to strengthen the justice system. Bill C-25 is an important contribution to this objective.

I appreciate the support of our provincial and territorial partners for this legislative amendment to provide greater truth in sentencing. I can only hope that we can also count on the support of the opposition parties, who have so often stood in the way of any bill that would actually reflect truth in sentencing.

I note the Liberal member for Vancouver South, who has been a loud critic of this government on law and order issues, recently criticized our approach to the issue of sentencing. In the Vancouver Sun on March 26 he is quoted as saying:

If they were genuinely concerned about public safety, they would have actually gone through the system, including corrections and parole board, and attempted to deal with the issue of organized crime. I believe they have not done their job in that regard.

I have three things to say in response to the member, who is a lawyer and a former attorney general of British Columbia.

First, we have introduced four separate bills in the past two months that will help police and prosecutors to crack down on organized crime, and gang and gun war is being waged in the Lower Mainland right now. Will he and his party support those bills?

Second, since forming government in 2006, we have continually introduced legislation to better achieve truth in sentencing. His party opposed these bills in the House and in the Senate. It was not until the Prime Minister threatened an election that the Liberals finally agreed to allow this measure to pass. Why did his party oppose truth in sentencing for so long?

Finally, let us remember that the member for Vancouver South was elected in 2004 and appointed to cabinet. He said that he is concerned about organized crime. He said that he is serious about stopping gun and gang violence. Why was the legislation we are debating today not passed while he was still in power?

I would call on the member and all parties in Parliament to put aside the partisan rhetoric and join us in supporting this common sense legislation.

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

moved that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House leader for seconding this bill. It is very important legislation and is an important part of this government's agenda. We are opening debate on the truth in sentencing act. The amendments to the Criminal Code proposed in this bill will limit the credit that a court may grant a convicted criminal for time served in pre-sentence custody.

As some in the House may be aware, section 719(3) of the Criminal Code allows a court to take account of the time a convicted criminal has spent in pre-sentencing custody in determining the sentence to be imposed. The code does not set out any formula for calculating this credit, but the courts routinely give credit on a two-for-one basis. In many cases the courts give credit on a three-to-one basis. In other words, for every day a convicted offender has spent in remand, the court will deduct from the sentence it otherwise would impose, two or three days.

Explanations for the length of a sentence are usually provided in open court at the time of sentencing. However, judges are not required to explain the basis for their decision to award pre-sentence credit. As a result, they do not always do so and this deprives the public of information about the extent of the pre-sentence detention. It leaves people in the dark about why the detention should allow a convicted criminal to receive what is most often considered to be a discounted sentence. This creates the impression that offenders are getting more lenient sentences than they deserve.

There is a concern that the current practice of awarding generous credit for pre-sentence custody may be encouraging some of those accused to abuse the court process by deliberately choosing to stay in remand in the hope of getting a shorter term of imprisonment once they have been awarded credit for time served.

For ordinary Canadians, it is hard to understand how such sentences comply with the fundamental purposes of sentencing, which is to denounce unlawful conduct, deter the offender from committing other offences and protect society by keeping convicted criminals off the streets.

The practice of awarding generous credit erodes public confidence in the integrity of the justice system. It also undermines the commitment of the government to enhance the safety and security of Canadians by keeping violent or repeat offenders in custody for longer periods.

Those who defend the current practice note that credit for pre-sentence custody compensates for the fact that the time a convicted criminal has spent in remand does not count toward eligibility for full parole or statutory release.

At present, a prison inmate is eligible for full parole after one-third of the sentence has been served. If parole is not granted, that same inmate will likely be set free on statutory release at the two-thirds point in the sentence. What this means in practice is that if someone is released on full parole at the one-third point in the sentence, every day he or she has served in prison will have counted, in effect, for three days.

If parole is denied and at the same time a person is set free on statutory release at the two-thirds point in the sentence, every day he or she has served in prison will have counted, in effect, as a day and a half.

The current system of presumptive release that currently underpins Canada's approach to corrections has recently been the subject of an exhaustive review by an independent panel. This panel's report entitled “A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety” was delivered by my colleague, the former minister of public safety, in October 2007.

Among other things, the independent review panel recommended that statutory release be entirely eliminated and that Canada move toward a system of earned parole. The goal is to encourage prison inmates to sincerely apply themselves to the rehabilitative programs available to them in prison.

The practice of awarding generous credit for pre-sentence custody cannot rest on the foundation of a statutory release and parole system that has itself been subject to strong and impartial criticism and that may therefore be significantly changed in the future. However, those who defend the current practice note that the generous credit for pre-sentencing custody is also designed to take into account such factors as overcrowding and lack of rehabilitative programming for inmates in remand centres.

I have received many letters and representations from concerned Canadians on the issue of pre-sentencing custody credit. All too often they cite situations where violent offenders are set free after having served a relatively short prison term because a court has awarded them two or three to one credit for pre-sentence custody. One writer commented that if one of the purposes of incarceration is to reform criminals, then the current practice of awarding two for one is a dismal failure. He writes:

The rationale is that the criminal has been deprived of the benefits of programs that would be made available to him in a regular penitentiary. So, in addition to releasing him back into society without these rehabilitating programs, we send him out twice as fast.

It is hard to disagree with that.

Not only does the current practice deprive offenders of the prison programs that might help to keep them out of jail in the future, it also fails to punish them adequately for the deeds that led to their convictions in the first place. This is especially the case of those offenders who have been denied bail and sent to a remand centre because of their past criminal records or because they have violated their bail conditions.

Bad behaviour should not be rewarded.

This government is on record as having pledged to address this issue, something that the bill would do. We have tabled Bill C-25 to strictly limit the amount of credit the courts may grant to convicted criminals for the time they have served in custody prior to their sentencing.

Our government is following through on its commitment to ensure that individuals found guilty of crimes serve a sentence that reflects the severity of those crimes.

This bill would accomplish a number of important objectives. It would deliver on our promise to provide truth in sentencing. It would help to unclog our court system and avoid costly delays and would do this by providing the courts with clear guidance and limits for granting credit for time served.

The Criminal Code amendments tabled on March 27 clearly stipulate that the general rule should be one day credit for each day served in pre-sentence custody. If circumstances justify it, credit may be given at a ratio of up to one and a half days for each day served. In such cases, however, the courts would be required to explain the circumstances that warrant departing from the general rule of one to one credit. This would allow the judge the discretion to award credit of up to one and half to one in appropriate cases. That being said, when it comes to offenders who have violated bail or who have been denied bail because of their criminal record, credit for time served would be strictly limited to a one to one ratio without exception.

I want to repeat that no extra credit would be granted under any circumstances for repeat offenders or those who have violated their bail conditions.

The proposed amendments would provide greater certainty and clarity in sentencing. It would require the courts to provide written justification for any credit granted beyond the one to one ratio. The courts would also be required to state in the record the amount of time spent in custody, the term of imprisonment that would be imposed before any credit is granted, the amount of time credited and the sentence imposed. Canadians would no longer be left wondering about how a particular sentence has been arrived at in a particular case.

Although sentencing issues are complex, they are issues of utmost importance to this government. We need to work closely with our provincial and territorial partners to deal with the many issues associated with sentencing reform.

Extra credit for time spent in pre-sentence custody is widely seen as one of several factors that have contributed to significant increases in the remand population in the last few years. This significant growth has put provincial and territorial institutions under considerable pressure.

Since 2007, more people have been held in provincial and territorial remand centres than were serving sentences in provincial and territorial jails. Overall, remanded accused now represent about 60% of admissions to provincial and territorial jails.

Several factors are at work that may contribute to the fact that the remand population is rising. Across Canada, court cases are becoming more complex due partly to the rise in the number of complex drug and organized crime related prosecutions. Many cases now involve 10 and 20 appearances before the courts. Longer processing times mean longer stays in remand.

For example, in 1994-95 about one-third of those in remand were being held for more than a week. Ten years later, however, those held for more than a week had grown to almost half of the remand population. This is a significant drain on resources at a time when the justice system is already under strain with an increasingly heavy workload.

Trials are becoming longer which also increases the amount of time an accused is remanded. All of this adds up to an increase in the remand population. The result is that offenders spend less time in sentenced custody because they spend too long in remand, which is why the provinces and territories welcome the reforms contained in Bill C-25.

Many of my colleagues and I stood with provincial attorneys general and solicitors general when our government announced the introduction of Bill C-25 on March 25. I was in British Columbia with the attorney general, Wally Oppal; the mayor of Surrey, Dianne Watts; the Vancouver police chief, Jim Chu; and other police representatives, including a member of the Canadian Police Association. This all took place at the Surrey remand centre. I was so pleased to be joined by a number of my colleagues who have been very supportive of this initiative and all of the initiatives that this government has taken to combat crime.

I hope I am not embarrassing him when I say that I was pleased to be there with the member for North Vancouver, and I thank him for his support. I thank the chairman of the justice committee, the member for Abbotsford, and one of the women who has been pushing this issue for quite some time, the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells. Mr. Speaker, you know of her commitment.

I was also pleased to be joined on that date by the member for Surrey North who has been very supportive of our criminal law agenda. Members will remember a number of occasions when she has posed questions to me during question period all related to getting tough on crime and sending out the right message. I thanked her on that day and I am pleased that she has joined with me again today. I know of her commitment in this area.

Since the day we made that announcement, we have had overwhelming support from attorneys general and solicitors general because they believe that Bill C-25 will help them cope with the growing number of accused who are awaiting sentencing while housed in their jails. They believe it will help them stem the tide of increased costs due to a growing demand, which is why the truth in sentencing bill is very important to them.

At a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers held last September, my counterparts unanimously encouraged us to proceed with amendments similar to those seen in the truth and sentencing bill and they indicated that this was a top priority for them.

These are important reforms. Canadians have been waiting for a long time. Many say that offenders too often slip through the fingers of out justice system without serving adequate time. As a result, Canadians have been demanding change. They believe there must be more truth in sentencing and that the sentence one gets is the sentence one should serve. This approach set out in Bill C-25 would help restore the people's confidence in the criminal justice system. In the oft-repeated phrase, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

This approach is also more consistent with the situation found in other common-law countries where awarding a credit for pre-sentence custody is far less generous than in Canada. One concern expressed by some critics is that Bill C-25 is unfair because it does not adequately recognize the pre-sentence custody that often occurs in overcrowded institutions that lack opportunities for education and treatment. It is not our intention that accused persons be encouraged to remain in remand any longer than is absolutely necessary. Rather, it is our intention that accused persons proceed to trial with as little delay as possible and, if convicted and given a custodial sentence, that they may be sent to prisons that are not overcrowded and offer more opportunities for education and treatment.

In that regard, my department has been working closely with provinces, territories and members of the bench and the bar to identify practical and effective ways to improve the efficiency of the courts to ensure they are able to meet the challenges now confronting them.

The approach taken in the truth in sentencing bill should encourage good conduct by accused persons while on bail and should encourage them to seek an early trial where possible and where appropriate to enter an early guilty plea. Above all, it would lead to greater clarity across Canada regarding the relationship between the sentencing posed on an offender and the credit for pre-sentence custody.

These changes are long overdue but late is better than never. Time and time again, Canadians have said that they want a strong criminal justice system. They want us to move quickly and decisively to tackle violent crime.

Our government is committed to protecting Canada's citizens and making those streets safer. We will continue doing what Canadians expect and deserve and that is making laws that will keep our communities and streets safer. We promised to tackle crime and strengthen security when we formed the government and we have kept our word.

Since we took office, we have brought forward several key pieces of legislation, including the Tackling Violent Crime Act, which, among other things, signals an end to lenient penalties for those who commit serious or violent gun crimes. Our government has a long list of accomplishments in tackling crime over the last two years. We passed legislation to increase penalties for those convicted of street racing. We passed legislation that ends house arrest for serious personal injury and violent offences, including sexual assault.

As members know, we recently brought in reforms to address the problems of organized crime, Bill C-14, and introduced Bill C-15 to provide mandatory sentencing for serious drug offences. On March 31, we introduced in the Senate Bill S-4, the bill to protect Canadians against the rapidly increasing crime of identity theft.

We are proud of those changes. We are standing up for Canadians who have urged us to get tough on crime. Canadians across the country have told us that they want us to take action on crime and, with this legislation, we are delivering. We cannot do this job alone. I greatly appreciate the support I have received from my provincial and territorial counterparts but more is needed. I call on all members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate to expedite the passage of this bill, indeed all the bills that are part of our ambitious justice agenda. Canadians are watching this and this is what they expect. I hope all members will agree that this is what Canadians deserve.

[Matthew Taylor]

That's exactly what it's doing. It's proposing to address the more serious offences, and in addition, Bill C-14 would codify the principle that in sentencing for such attacks, which undermine the justice system more broadly, judges would be required to consider deterrents and denunciation as primary sentencing objectives.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, Minister, and to your officials, for being here this afternoon.

When you were making your preliminary remarks, it brought to mind a witness we had before our committee who represented the Vancouver Board of Trade. I believe his name was Mr. Rezac. When the issue of mandatory minimums came up, he said that has been a widely held misconception, that there is no evidence that they work. He made reference to the United States and the fact that actually it was. So we have a person, who is independent of the political realm, whose organization has done some investigation into this.

My question has more to do with the worst of the worst. Minister, you also made reference to that. You said that at least near the end of their term there are 10 more years, I think you said, when they're not out on the streets. By the way, Mr. Rezac used the same terms, that there are people who aren't going to be victimized either in their stores or on the streets, and whose daughters are not going to be worried about walking on the streets at night. When speaking about hardened criminals, the fact is that these people are not average Canadians.

We want to make sure that the rights of average Canadians are upheld and that the rights of all Canadians are upheld. But we want to see those who are recidivists and those who commit crimes of violence related to organized crimes and street gangs behind bars. Those are the people Bill C-14 is dealing with, to ensure the worst offenders are unable to endanger the lives of Canadians.

I wonder if you could make a comment on some of those issues.

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

Thank you, Minister. I look forward to a speedy passage of Bill C-14.

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

Thank you.

At this table and elsewhere, when we discuss criminal law and criminal justice, often the focus is on the accused and their rights. Of course the system has built-in safeguards--the preponderance of evidence, and the onus on the state. As you know, the charter gave a whole bunch more rights. Through all that, it often concerns me that the rights of victims are frequently neglected in that process and, quite frankly, in that debate. Victims are not well represented. There's no national association or lobby of criminal victims. They lack the resources, and quite frankly, they lack the voice.

With respect to the accused and the defender, we talk about deterrence and rehabilitation. I congratulate the government again with respect to the victims' ombudsman, which was created during the 39th Parliament.

Minister, my specific question is with respect to making sure the victims of crime are heard and consulted, and with respect to consultation, not only for Bill C-14 but for your other initiatives generally.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

That's enough. I want to remind members that there is a general rule of relevancy. Today we're dealing with Bill C-14. The bill before us deals with organized crime.

Mr. Dosanjh, I've given you a fair degree of leeway to ask questions that are perhaps outside the bill. But let's remember, folks, that we're all working together to try to make this country safer. Let's keep the partisanship to a minimum, as much as we can.

Mr. Murphy.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you. I may finish early and split time with my other colleague here.

Mr. Minister, I'm not going to ask you any questions on Bill C-14. I have some other questions that I want to ask you, and I'm glad you're here.

You obviously know British Columbia made three requests when they came to see you, and they met with us as well. We said the Liberal Party of Canada supports their three requests. Recently other provinces--Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba--have added their voices to those three requests. I understand that some time ago Ontario was of the same view. Four other provinces in addition to British Columbia have added their voices to British Columbia's voice for those three changes, at least.

I'm going to focus on the change with respect to the wiretap and electronic surveillance request that British Columbia made. The other day before this committee we had the opportunity to hear from assistant commissioner of the RCMP, Mike Cabana, and he echoed his support for that request as well.

My question to you is very simple. You're moving on two for one, thank you. This particular organization of investigative techniques, MITA as it's called, was brought forward in 2005 by then Minister Anne McLellan. It died on the order paper. You don't have to do any more drafting. It's done. It's sitting there within the justice department. Why have you not moved on it? Why do you not think this is important for the police? They want to be able to apprehend or disrupt gang activity and they are at a disadvantage because of the state of the law in this area. It goes back over 30 years.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for giving us the opportunity to come and talk about Bill C-14.

As you know, our government is committed to fighting crime and ensuring the safety and security of Canadians. We've made great strides in protecting Canadians and cracking down on crime. We passed the comprehensive Tackling Violent Crime Act, which increases penalties, including for those convicted of street racing, and establishes the national anti-drug strategy to curb illicit drug use. Ours is a comprehensive approach on these matters.

Bill C-14 is another plank in our ambitious crime agenda. This important piece of legislation is an example of this government's ongoing commitment to improve the safety of our streets and communities by tackling organized crime, especially violent street gangs. I'll set out some of the major components of this, and of course I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have on this.

Gang violence is an extremely serious concern for many Canadians, especially right now in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland, where recently there has been a wave of violence from gang members. I receive letters and e-mail from citizens, mayors, and attorneys general urging the federal government to take action to address the threats that gangs are posing to their communities.

Bill C-14 proposes four key reforms. They are making gang murders automatically first degree murder; creating a new offence to target drive-by and other reckless shootings; fortifying the scheme for responding to assaults against police and other peace officers and public officers; and strengthening the gang peace bond provisions.

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 are planned and deliberate. Furthermore, 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 association with a criminal organization, then it will be classed as first degree murder even in the absence of planning and deliberation. The person would obviously have to be guilty of murder in the circumstances. I want to emphasize that 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.

Gang homicides account for approximately 20% of all the homicides that take place in Canada, but in British Columbia, which has been hard hit by gang violence, that number is a staggering 40% of all homicides. What is even more troubling is that gang homicide rates have been climbing each year. Clearly, this demands attention from all levels of government.

Under this law, any person found guilty of first degree murder is sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment. As you know, in the case of first degree murder, there is no eligibility for parole for 25 years. In the case of second degree murder, the parole ineligibility period is a minimum of 10 years up to a maximum of 25. These amendments to section 231 of the Criminal Code mean that police officers and prosecutors will have another tool to treat gang murders as the extremely serious cases that they are.

The second area of reform relates to drive-by and other reckless shootings. We are proposing a new offence be added to the Criminal Code that would target all intentional shootings involving reckless disregard for the life or safety of others. Currently the offences available to prosecute these kinds of cases range from offences such as section 86, the careless use of a firearm, to section 244, the discharge of a firearm with intent to cause bodily harm. The negligence-based offences do not appropriately capture the seriousness of a drive-by scenario that 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.

While the offence is clearly the more appropriate one if the shooter does have a particular target, it can sometimes be difficult to prove in a drive-by shooting scenario where the intent may be generally to intimidate a rival gang or the community. In many cases, the shooters may just be firing wildly, in any event, without a particular target. The proposed offence will fill a gap in the Criminal Code and provide a tailored response to this dangerous criminal activity.

This new offence requires that the accuseds specifically turn their minds to the fact that discharging their firearms would jeopardize the life or safety of another person, and appreciating this fact, they still went ahead. This offence would be punishable by a mandatory penalty of four years of imprisonment and a maximum of 14 years. The mandatory minimum penalty would be increased to five years if the offence were committed for the benefit of, or at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, or it 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 penalty, beginning at seven years of imprisonment.

A third area of reform is aimed at increasing the protection to police officers and to responding to violence committed against other justice system participants. It does this by creating two new offences to prohibit assaults causing bodily harm to police officers, or involving the use of a weapon and aggravated assaults against police officers. These offences would be punishable on indictment by a maximum imprisonment period of 10 and 14 years respectively. To ensure these offences are adequately punished, we have proposed amendments that would require a court, when sentencing an offender for any of the specific offences, to give primary consideration to the principles of denunciation and deterrence. The same principles would also apply to cases involving the intimidation of justice system participants, including judges, prosecutors, jurors, and many others who play a role in the criminal justice system.

Finally, the fourth area of reform proposed in Bill C-14 relates to the strengthening of the gang peace bond provision. These amendments would clarify that when issuing a reconnaissance order or a promise to keep the peace, judges may impose any conditions they feel are necessary to secure the good conduct of the defendant. The amendments would also provide for these orders to be extended past the normal one year up to 24 months if the defendant had been previously convicted of a criminal organization offence, or the intimidation of justice system participants offence, as well as a terrorism offence. These are important tools because they seek to prevent the commission of organized crime offences before they take place, and they are extremely useful for the police in controlling gang activity. These amendments will ensure that the orders are used as they are intended.

Mr. Chair, as I've said in the past, there can be no more important task for any government to undertake than the protection of its citizens. Bill C-14 will result in greater protection for Canadians everywhere. I think Canadians would like to see legislation like this passed, so I urge honourable members of this committee to work collaboratively and efficiently to ensure a speedy passage of this bill.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 12 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Monday, March 30, 2009.

You have the agenda for today before you. By order of reference, we have before us Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants).

Please note that we will be leaving half an hour at the end of this meeting to discuss in camera a number of work plan issues that the committee has to address.

To assist us in the review of Bill C-14, we're glad to have with us the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Rob Nicholson. With him are representatives from the Department of Justice. First of all, we have Mr. William Bartlett, senior counsel, criminal law policy section; we also have Matthew Taylor, who's also counsel with the criminal law policy section.

Minister Nicholson will be with us for one hour. I believe Department of Justice officials will be here for another half an hour after that, so that works well.

Minister Nicholson, you're aware of the routine. You have 10 minutes to present, and we'll open the floor to questions. The floor is yours.

Controlled Drugs and Substance Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking to you, I will bet the member met with police, but I bet he did not sit down with a group like VANDU to find out what that experience is.

The member spoke of what is going on in Vancouver. I agree it is horrific. I have had lots of emails and phone calls from people. I spoke about this yesterday when I was debating Bill C-14. To me this is further evidence that the regime we have had, the so-called war on drugs the Conservatives are committed to so obsessively, with blinkers, despite the evidence, is failing.

In terms of the four pillar approach, in every society and every country around the world that has made progress dealing with drug use, it is because they have adopted policies under the four pillar approach. To say that it is a failure, I guess the member has not properly researched this or looked at what is going on. The four pillar approach based on treatment, harm reduction, prevention and enforcement, and enforcement is a part of it, is absolutely what is going on internationally. Even the UN is recognizing that harm reduction is a very important component of its drug policies. There was recently a conference at the UN.

I heard what President Obama said. He is obviously not ready to do that, but my point was that the American public overwhelmingly is saying to stop this madness. I think President Obama will eventually get that message and I am pretty sure he will begin to make changes.

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on Bill C-15.

It is my great pleasure to rise on this topic and on the topic of justice in general. The preface would be in that old common law saying, “Justice delayed is justice denied”. Usually that goes to the rights of an accused, but what I would say for the Canadian public, on the floor of the House, is justice is being delayed. The government has been in power three years and we still have problems with crime.

I have been in the bowels of the government's justice machine. Two things we do not want to see, but need, are the making of laws and the making of sausages. I was also on the floor of meat packing plants in Moncton in the old days. I do not think members really want to see sausages being made. I am not sure members would want to see the laws being made by the government over the past three years either.

The Conservatives really have not been effective. If we want to get at the root causes of crime and if we want to do what we all want as parliamentarians, which is to have safer communities, we have to look at the beginning and the end. We have to look at the whole situation with respect to crime. We do not go to CTV or CBC, get on the news and say, “We're doing something about crime. Look at the bill we're introducing”. We do not have successive parliaments have their work interrupted by prorogations. That is what the government has done. It has denied justice by delaying justice.

Even when the government gets around to what it sees as its fix, its panacea, which is just legislation, it does not seem to get that its legislation alone will not solve the problems we have with organized crime, drug abuse and the drug culture and drug crime industry in this community.

That is why I will take some time to not only review Bill C-15, but the whole issue of drugs in our country.

A few weeks ago we had a delegation in Ottawa from British Columbia. I know it met with members of the government as well. We would not be honest with ourselves if we did not say to the House that we are, in a bit, reacting to a very serious situation in British Columbia, but there are serious situations in North Preston and Halifax. There are serious situations in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary and all across the country.

However, the people on the front line are the men and women in law enforcement, the men and women in the prosecutorial offices and the men and women who wear uniforms to enforce our laws in the province of British Columbia.

That delegation included the attorney general of British Columbia, who came with some very specific demands. The chief law officer of the province of British Columbia came here with specific demands that had not been addressed by the government. They were not gargantuan tasks. They were tasks we would expect of a reacting, competent government. As I mentioned, not only does it have a very capable Queen's Counsel, a member of Parliament for some 20 years, Attorney General, it also has two very good parliamentary secretaries, representing the best of English speaking Canada from Albert County, New Brunswick and the best of French speaking Canada from Quebec.

Notwithstanding those heavy resources and great minds that are applied to this subject, the government has not been able to respond adequately, swiftly and thoroughly to the needs of the attorney general of British Columbia. They involve relatively simple things, simple things that the laws have evolved to become obstacles to the law enforcement officials in British Columbia. The whole issue around disclosure, as I mentioned in one of my interventions, has become very cumbersome for law enforcement officials.

There is a bit of a paper war between prosecutors and police forces with respect to having to comply to the need for disclosure as bolstered by the law in Stinchcombe. The prosecutors sometimes want paper files. They are not ready to move to electronic files, that is fine. Police officers who compile some of the initial information are tied up quite often making copies thereof. The prosecutors in many provinces have to go over the evidence themselves in order to prefer the charges. In some cases, that means watching hours of video.

One would think that a government responding to need would say that it has the power of legislative reform and the power to introduce amendments that might address Stinchcombe, that might address the exactitude and timeliness with respect to disclosure. However, we might also expect that it would react by giving money and resources to both prosecutorial services and police forces in order to comply with the need for disclosure. However, nothing like that was done. The response was always legislation.

Funnily, on this side we saw today that even when all the opposition parties seem willing to get this to committee quickly, the Minister of Justice seemed to be the only one in the room who did not get the song sheet. He did not seem to understand that everybody wanted it to go to committee and he had a bit of a fit, which did not advance the ball at all.

We are not against these bills going to committee to be studied. They will go through the rigour that the committee has always brought to legislation, when the House has not been prorogued and the work of committees permanently stopped, which has been the case in the three years that the Conservative government has had its hands on the wheel.

I was involved in municipal politics. At that time, we only a three-year term. If I did as little in my entire mandate for the citizens of Moncton as the government has done on the justice dossier, I would not have been acclaimed to my second term. Three years is enough time for the people on the other side to stop saying that people on this side are born again to the justice issue.

I think of the member for Mount Royal and all that he has done to contribute to the laws of our country and Conservatives say that he is born again. If Liberals are born again, that means the Conservatives were never born at all or, if they were, they are like puppies in the first few days. They have wool over their eyes and they do not see the larger issues that, after three years, should be so apparent. There are issues with respect to the root causes of crime and drug issues with respect to how we will implement issues around the four pillars that the people from British Columbia live by in the inner city.

Even proponents of the Conservative justice agenda, and I think primarily of the representatives of the board of trade from British Columbia who were here yesterday, recognize that the legislation alone is not enough. Even they would say that no one is born a criminal. One has to become a criminal and embrace a lifestyle that leads to incarceration. Unfortunately, time and time again the government has brought forward legislation that only talks about one of the pillars or, if we want to get technical, one of the principles of sentencing as found in the Criminal Code, which is the issue of incarceration.

Bill C-15 is a fairly good stab at an acute problem in our country, which is the enforcement of people who break the law with respect to the use, importation and trafficking of drugs. It is particularly important to underline, as my friend the parliamentary secretary did, the action with respect to a certain rise in the use of methamphetamine.

There has been some success, without any of these laws being enacted, that should be heralded in the House today. Not surprisingly, the story comes from New Brunswick. This kind of activity by our police forces takes place every day in Canada, and they are not heralded enough.

We are in an era when good RCMP officers have had their expected wage increases reduced, as if they were other civil servants or like other members of Parliament. In a day and age when the RCMP is having some difficulty in recruitment and some issues with respect to their municipal contracts across our country, we might want to ask ourselves, and Canadians as well, what the Minister of Public Safety is doing with respect to the RCMP. How is the esprit de corps at the RCMP?

Would it not be good to read stories like this all the time? In fact, the story emanates from Moncton, New Brunswick, and it goes as follows:

The number of seizures in New Brunswick of the drug methamphetamine has doubled in the past year, RCMP say....The number of meth seizures jumped to 90 in 2008 from roughly 45 in 2007.

That is a good news story. As my friend, the parliamentary secretary, said, this is a particularly pernicious and addictive drug. This is proof that the RCMP, with proper resources, and forget about all the new laws involved, can crack down on what exists now.

My initial plea is for the government to wake up on two fronts. One, it is proposing legislation that is but a small part of a resolution or improvement in the situation, which in one case we have suggested should go right to committee. Members will find with respect to Bill C-15, at least with respect to the Liberal Party's position, that we also support it going to committee for study, but I have not heard from the Conservative side anything that suggests there is anything else in the Conservative agenda with respect to fixing the situation.

There was a little crack in the armour at committee recently, when the other parliamentary secretary said that no one was suggesting that these bills were the be-all and end-all. That is a good start. The road to improvement is looking in the mirror and realizing that we are leading Canadians to believe we are fixing the crime situation with our nightly newscasts. However, it would be refreshing to hear from the Conservative side. It would be refreshing to hear those members say that there is a long road to climb, that funding adequately police forces and prosecutorial services is one of those things and investing morally and mentally in the ideas of harm reduction and prevention and early childhood intervention with respect to the root causes of crime is another. These would be refreshing thoughts for all Canadians to hear.

With respect to the bill itself, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act would be amended to include a one year mandatory prison sentence, which would be imposed for dealing drugs such as marijuana when carried out for an organized crime purpose.

Another thing the government could do is this. I happen to know that the Department of Justice, if asked, would be ready and would embrace the idea of looking at the definition of organized crime.

There were improvements to the Criminal Code, which interspersed organized crime definitions, but when we compare it to the RICO statute in the United States, it is more narrowly defined. It is not as contemporary as we need it to be when we are talking about street gangs, which in some cases might be two people. As members know, the organized crime provisions in the Criminal Code apply to three people.

The criminals have been much more sophisticated and they have grown much readier to adapt to legal situations than our Parliament has in making the laws to react.

This does not have anything to do with mandatory minimums, or conditional sentences or being tough on crime. This has to do with looking at the Criminal Code as an organic document. I do not want to get too farm-like, but if we have an organic document, it is a bit like a garden. We have to tend to that garden and understand that certain crops need to be fertilized. Some need to be covered, protected and watered. That is what the Criminal Code is like.

Certain provisions are so antiquated that the only brilliant Conservative attorney general would turn over in his grave, and that was Sir John Thompson in 1892, who wrote the Criminal Code. I know I am going back over 100 years to give a great compliment to the Conservatives. I guess that is endemic to this place. The fact is he wrote the Criminal Code and he would turn over in his grave to see how antiquated it is in some ways.

After three years, the government ought to say that it has to take ownership of its failure in making the Criminal Code a more modern document.

With respect to organized crime, the Criminal Code has to do be updated. With respect to the Criminal Code and all the issues around warrants, electronic or otherwise, prosecutors have to go to graduate school to figure out how many different types of warrants they might have to apply for in front of judges before they are able to use them.

These things are completely non-contentious. They are things that could have been brought to Parliament in the first year, the second year, now, or hopefully next week, if anybody listens to the sense in my speech. These are things that could improve the enforcement of our laws.

This bill will enact a two year mandatory prison sentence for dealing drugs such as cocaine, heroin and meth to youth, or for dealing those drugs near a school or an area normally frequented by youth. A two year mandatory prison sentence will also be imposed for the offence of running a large marijuana grow operation of at least 500 plants. These are very targeted sentences which, when problems are increasing exponentially particularly in certain areas of the country, we cannot oppose. These are wonderful provisions for a very specific problem.

What is missing in this crime prevention program is a more holistic approach. Why have we not heard the Conservatives talk about bringing forward other legislation that will be more effective?

We have had the argument regarding mandatory minimum sentences in past Parliaments. The opinion is divided. I am not an expert on this, but I know that other members of the committee have sat through hours of testimony from a multitude of experts who are very divided, but by and large the experts are saying that tougher penalties for people who produce and traffic drugs will only scare the ma and pa producers. That is good. Anybody who is doing any of these crimes should be scared. I am talking about the second pillar in the Criminal Code with respect to sentencing, and that is deterrence. Let us hope it deters some of the young and inexperienced and ma and pa producers. That is a good thing. However, it will not deter organized crime.

Bill C-14 and Bill C-15 are somewhat related, and although they deal with organized crime, they do so in a fashion which, without changing the definition in the code, might not have the effect that we are all hoping for.

The Canadian public has to be aware that just because two bills came forward and just because they seem to be targeted at very specific, acute and well-known problems today, that does not mean those problems are going to be fixed tomorrow. It would be leading the Canadian public down a road of false hope if the Canadian government, represented by its Attorney General, got in front of a camera again and suggested that this is all going to be fixed. He has been saying that since I first got here, and it has not been fixed.

Another important element is that these mandatory sentences have been tried in other jurisdictions. Mandatory drug penalties have helped turn the United States into the world's leading jailer with more than 2.3 million people in prison, according to the International Centre for Prison Studies in London. The U.S. also has the highest per capita rate of incarceration, with 751 people in jail for every 100,000 in population. That is more than Russia, more than China, more than Canada.

No one on this side is against incarceration for people who do wrong. No one is against that, but to think it is a cure for the problems that ail us, to think that is the only solution is wrong. That the government, in doing this, has not committed adequate resources for the facilities that will incarcerate them is also the double end of the false hope that Canadians might have in this situation.

With that, and in conclusion, as a member of the committee I continue to hope that we will work in a very non-partisan fashion as we have in this Parliament. I compliment the two parliamentary secretaries. I look forward to reviewing the bill.

Criminal Code

[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)

[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.

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.

[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, 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.

[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.

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the House leader for the official opposition, for his multitude of questions.

First of all, as he indicated, today we will continue debate on Bill C-14, the organized crime bill. I would point out that it is thanks to the Minister of Justice, whose leadership this morning overcame an opposition tactic aimed at delaying Bill C-14 that we do have an agreement to move that bill forward. As a result of the minister's intervention, Bill C-14 will in fact be sent to committee at the end of today, pursuant to a special order of the House.

Tonight the House will consider a take note debate on the international conference on Afghanistan hosted by The Hague.

As I mentioned earlier, we adopted a special order for Bill C-14. Unfortunately that special order did not cover the second justice bill that is slated for debate today. In fact it is conceivable we would have already been into that debate had it not been for the delaying tactics of the opposition earlier this morning.

This is the bill that the hon. member referred to, Bill C-15, the drug offences bill. It is another key piece of our government legislation that will help curb gang violence, yet we do not see it moving quickly through the House. That said, I am hopeful we can complete the bill today or have it completed at the latest tomorrow, provided the NDP does not invoke another delaying tactic as it did this morning.

Following the drug offences bill, we have scheduled for debate Bill C-7, marine liability; Bill S-3, energy efficiency; and Bill C-13, the Canada Grain Act. All of these bills are at second reading.

On Monday, pursuant to a special order adopted yesterday, we will complete the third reading stage of Bill C-2, the Canada-EFTA free trade agreement bill. After considerable delay in this chamber, it will be nice to move that bill over to our colleagues down the hall in the Senate.

We will continue next week with any uncompleted business from this week, with the addition of Bill C-5 regarding the Indian Oil and Gas Act, which is at report stage and third reading stage, and Bill C-18 regarding RCMP pensions, which is at second reading. We will add to the list any bills that are reported back from the various committees.

Tuesday, March 31 shall be an allotted day.

In reference to the upcoming justice bills that the member might be referring to when he referred to the remand legislation, he is going to have to stay tuned. We will be bringing that forward very soon. I am sure he will be very pleased with the result and will want to move very quickly once it hits the floor of the chamber.

As he knows, the government is very transparent when it comes to government expenditures, including the upcoming expenditures of the accelerated economic stimulus contained in the $3 billion under vote 35. All of that of course will be revealed to the Canadian public and to Parliament in good time as we make those investments on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the House was pleased earlier today to deal very efficiently with Bill C-14, and by the end of government orders today, that bill will be deemed carried at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, a very good illustration of how the opposition is tangibly moving forward an agenda with respect to public safety.

I wonder if the government House leader in his remarks about the agenda for the rest of this week and next week would indicate what timing he has in mind for that other piece of legislation, Bill C-15, dealing with other portions of the government's justice plan.

I wonder if he could also tell us when we will see the details of the legislation on remand. That was expected either today or yesterday, but I do not believe it has yet been tabled or introduced, and it would be important to know when that bill will be coming forward.

One final matter. According to an opposition resolution duly adopted by the House, the government should table, by April 3, next week, a list of departments and programs, not projects, I hasten to add, which are likely to require access to Treasury Board vote 35 in the main estimates.

The government has a draft list of the programs and departments. The Auditor General says that this request from the House of Commons is perfectly reasonable, and I wonder when the government would be prepared to table that list in response to the motion which was adopted by the House of Commons.

Criminal Code

[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.

[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.

[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 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 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, 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.

[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—

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.

Committees of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, the member raised the question of delay of crime bills. I want to ask him if he feels that the Prime Minister was delaying crime bills, since there has not been a government bill in front of the justice committee for over a year now. The reason has been that, first, the Conservative chair of that committee at the time refused to let the committee function. Then we had the election call by the Prime Minister, who then prorogued Parliament, and we are still waiting.

As recently as Monday, Bill C-14, the gang bill, could have been before the House.

I am wondering if he feels that, on each of those occasions, his party and the representatives of his party were delaying the advance of crime bills in this legislature.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent that Bill C-14 be referred to committee after second reading at the end of today's sitting?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice may not have been aware of discussions among House leaders. Pursuant to those discussions among House leaders earlier this week, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent in the House that we would agree that by the end of the day today we will send Bill C-14 to committee.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe there was a little bit of confusion in the minds of the opposition. We are supposed to be debating Bill C-14, which is the government's anti-crime and anti-gang bill. That was supposed to be on the order paper today. All these people here purport to be supporting the government's anti-crime agenda. When they had the opportunity today, they got together and went back to their old habits. They all got together—

Criminal Code

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. House leader for the official opposition has many questions for the Thursday question and I will try to get to all of them.

Today we will continue debate on Bill C-14 on organized crime, which he mentioned. Following Bill C-14, we will consider Bill C-15, drug offences, and Bill C-16, the environmental enforcement act in that order.

Tonight we will complete the debate on the first report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

Tomorrow we will begin debate at third reading of Bill C-2, the Canada-European free trade agreement and continue with any unfinished business that carried over from today.

When the House returns from the constituency week, we will continue with the business from this week, with the addition of Bill C-9, transportation of dangerous goods, which was reported back from committee.

You can add to the list for the week we return, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7, marine liability, Bill S-3, energy efficiency, and Bill C-13, Canada grains, which are all at second reading and any bills that have been reported back from committee by then.

As to one of the questions that the member specifically mentioned, the last day in this supply period shall be on Tuesday, March 24, when the House will vote on supplementary estimates C, interim supply and the interim supply bill. As he noted, it is a very important day as these are the resources necessary to provide the stimulus to which we have all been looking forward and which Canadians are greatly anticipating.

Hopefully, the Senate will have passed the budget bill, Bill C-10 by then. In fact, as my colleague mentioned, my understanding is the opposition has suddenly discovered the parts of the budget bill that pertain specifically to the extension of employment insurance benefits, which will come into effect immediately upon royal assent of Bill C-10, the budget implementation act. Therefore, rather belatedly, the Liberal senators have decided to work with the Conservative senators in the other place and get the bill passed expeditiously. I hope that takes place this afternoon. It would be therefore my hope as well that royal assent could take place as early as this evening and we would see that bill enacted as quickly as possible.

As to the reiteration of my colleague's support for Bill C-14 and Bill C-15, our two latest justice bills, I welcome his support and I appreciate that. We are open to moving these bills through all stages as quickly as possible. Failing that, we would look to put up a minimum number of speakers, as we have done on many pieces of legislation already in this session, to move legislation through as quickly as possible. The problem, as my hon. colleague well knows, is not with the official opposition on or of the Conservative Party, the Conservative government, but with the other two parties, which are unwilling to do so.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have the usual Thursday question about House procedure for the next couple of weeks. We all know that next week is scheduled to be a week to work in constituencies.

Therefore, I would like to ask the government House leader specifically what he has in mind for tomorrow and then the week following the constituency work week. Specifically in that week, which day will he officially designate as the final allotted day in this supply period? That would be the day not just to deal with an opposition motion, but also the supplementary estimates and the appropriations act, dealing with interim supply. It is very important for the House to know in advance which day that will be.

Second, I would ask the hon. gentleman, again, if there would be a mood in the House, apropos some of the subjects dealt with in question period, to move expeditiously on Bills C-14 and C-15. It was over a week ago that the official opposition offered co-operation to expedite those two pieces of legislation dealing with gangs and drugs. We renew that offer today in order to move those items forward quickly.

Finally, with respect to Bill C-10, which is in the other place, as we understand the developments as of today, it is possible that the other place will today finish its deliberations with respect to the bill, at the initiative of the Leader of the Opposition. I would ask the government House leader if he could indicate when there will be royal assent arranged for Bill C-10. Would he expect that to happen tonight or tomorrow?

Criminal Code

[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 Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I believe Mr. LeBlanc makes a good point. Perhaps the way we could do it is simply pass the motion that we're going to do a study where we travel to a number of cities, and refer to the steering committee, which will be meeting tomorrow. I'll also get the clerk to look at times and dates and when this might work.

We'll also consult with the government and make sure this works with Bills C-14 and C-15 so that we don't neglect or delay them. Then we'll come back to you with a proposal on Wednesday, because next week, of course, we have our break. Next week there won't be any sitting of the committee unless we receive other instructions.

Does that sound good?

Monsieur Petit.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Sure, Mr. Chairman.

In the effort to try to arrive at some consensus, I think Réal's point is a good one. We shouldn't see this as an either/or proposition. I've accepted that the legislation should be a priority. We should take the bills separately.

My understanding--and I'm going by memory, Rob--is that they're being debated in the House as early as Wednesday of this week. That was the plan on some calendar I saw last week. So they may in fact be disposed of on Wednesday or Thursday of this week in the House and then referred to the committee.

I'm going by what Brian Murphy was telling me after the last meeting. I think the idea, to answer your question, Rob, was that we would have a one-week trip, or maybe two one-week trips, but we would start with one week. We would try to travel as a committee to as many of these cities as we can logistically. The chair and the clerk can come up with a proposal of what might work: do a five-day week, but a sitting week, where the committee would travel and the whips would allow the committee to travel while we were sitting.

That study itself is not necessarily part of the study of Bill C-14 or Bill C-15. They're complementary. They would be overlapping to some degree, but the study of the legislation is separate, and we would work with the government and the other opposition parties to try to have a very brief study--two committee sittings or something--of Bill C-14 and not necessarily interfere with the trip.

Realistically, the earliest time that we could travel is either the week before Easter.... We're three or four weeks away from being able to do a one-week trip, so somebody should come up with a proposal of what a one-week trip might look like. Realistically, we'll be dealing with Bill C-14 in the committee in the first week we're back after the break anyway, so one doesn't necessarily replace the other.

If we're going to travel, it's going to be the week before the Easter weekend, which is only three sitting weeks from now anyway, or even when we come back from Easter. I think somebody should work on a proposal for what a five-day trip would look like.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We need to clear up some confusion. As I see it, there are two issues confronting us, the first being a study of organized crime. As I understand it, once we have initiated our study on organized crime, the committee will take a full week to travel to all of the cities on the list. I don't have a problem with that. We're all mindful of the fact that Bill C-14, must be passed quickly. I remind you that the bill has not yet been referred to this committee. I am prepared to move quickly. Liberal colleagues have suggested to the House Leader that only one person be permitted to speak to the bill at second and third reading, so that we move forward quickly. We won't consent to that, because this bill provide for serious penalties for offenders. However, we are prepared to move quickly on this bill.

If, Mr. Chair, you have information to the effect that the bill is about to be referred to us this week, then I suggest we set aside the issue of organized crime—the focus of the proposed study—and get down to business right away. I think it's realistic to think that we can report back to the House in a week. Bill C-14 is a priority because of what is happening and, contrary to what Mr. Petit said, with all due respect, Montreal is not Vancouver. The two cities are not interchangeable. First, we need to know when the government intends to refer the proposed legislation to us. We've been waiting since last week and we still haven't seen the bill. The House Leader's office told us that the priority was Bill C-10. As it happens, that bill has been adopted. When the steering committee meets tomorrow, Mr. Chair, if you inform us that you have spoken to the minister or to the parliamentary secretary and we can expect the bill to be referred to us on Wednesday, then I'm prepared to make this our priority. We could begin examining the legislation as early as Thursday and new week, hold several meetings and then pass the bill. However, we cannot do two parallel studies. The two bills should be examined separately and our priority must be Bill C-14. Bill C-15 is something entirely different. But if that is what the committee wants, the Bloc Québécois will cooperate to ensure that we move quickly to study Bill C-14. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us when the House will refer the bill to committee? This hasn't yet happened.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Ménard, I think we're all on the same page on that one. The importance here is that Vancouver has been the most recent hot spot of organized and drug-related crime. I think the wish was that we go to Vancouver first and then we can go across the country and visit a number of other cities.

In terms of the cities that have been identified, we've heard Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax. Those are four cities. That would take up at least four of our meeting dates. The one complicating factor is that we expect shortly we're going to have Bill C-14 and Bill C-15 come before us. As you know, it's the government's preference that we deal with those bills right away. I did hear some comments when the minister was present that there was a willingness to fast-track those bills and ensure that they get passed into law.

Mr. Storseth, you had a question.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Minister and officials, for coming here today.

If you permit me, Mr. Minister, I would like to also say it's good to see Mr. Lee back again and to share a committee together with him. I would like to just mention for his sake that I'm also on the public safety committee, and I can tell him that, yes, there are many components to the issues we're dealing with here at the justice and public safety committee. I'm also very happy that I can say for his sake, or to him, and to those folks who are watching and listening to some of the comments he made, that this government's been spending a lot of their tax dollars on improving the investigative arm of things by investing heavily in the RCMP and other police forces, as well as making sure that there's an independence with the prosecutorial part by the appointment of Mr. Saunders, of course.

I would like, Mr. Minister, to talk about Bill C-14. In particular, what struck me was the amount of media coverage around that particular bill, and the kind of support that I know comes from the law enforcement community, with which I have a kinship. I think folks should realize that when police departments, police officers, and police associations talk to you, or you consult with them, behind that consultative process you have also community policing committees that they represent and who advise them, and also the victims of crime. I would like to ask you some questions surrounding the amount of consultation you've taken with various communities, not the least of which would be police officers, the people on the front lines who deal with these issues on a daily basis, and what kind of input they had to Bill C-14.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

Minister, I know that lately in the news we've been seeing a lot about crime. I guess the underlying concern that I have is what happens.... Obviously, we want those stories to go away and we want crime issues to be solved, but it takes a certain amount of resolve around this committee table, and indeed in the entire House of Commons, to pass effective justice legislation. We've seen in the past that bills have been brought forward and have ground to a halt. We've seen bills that haven't gone through the process to become law.

Can you tell us a bit about the current bills that have been introduced, Bill C-14 and Bill C-15, one dealing with drugs and the other with organized crime? What type of process goes into developing those bills? How long have those bills been on the books?

What do we do so that we don't become complacent? When I say “we”, I mean Parliament, because I know that your approach has been a steadfast approach. You're constantly pushing to improve the justice system, but obviously in a minority Parliament we need partners who are also willing to advance effective justice legislation. In the past, that's been lacking, so how do we avoid these issues being just the flavour of the week and instead something where we can be steadfast and resolved in improving the justice system?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

There are a couple of things, Mr. Dosanjh. A number of the issues that we have placed before Parliament have been on the desks of the attorneys general across this country, not just Bill C-14, which you opened up your remarks with and which is one of them, but Bill C-15, the drug bill, as well.

I had a very good conversation with both the attorney general and the public safety minister from British Columbia. I explained to them the contents of the two bills that we have before Parliament. I'm confident that I will have their support and I'll have the support of attorneys general right across this country. I have indicated to them, and I will indicate to you, as I have to Parliament, that we are taking these bills one step at a time.

You will remember when we introduced five bills in the first session of the last Parliament. You will remember as well that, when we adjourned in the summer of 2007, not one of those bills was actually passed into law. If I sound a bit frustrated thinking about that, I was very frustrated to have to deal with that.

I think it's best to introduce these bills one step at a time. I'm trying to garner public opinion on these. As you can tell from people like you and others who have followed this government's agenda for fighting crime, we're moving ahead. We'll continue to move ahead, but I'm taking them one step at a time.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

My questions are going to be brief. I would ask that the minister be brief in response, because I have three questions that I'm going to ask.

The first question is with respect to Bill C-14. Attorney General Wally Oppal and Solicitor General van Dongen from British Columbia came and met with you, Minister, and met with the opposition, including us. They indicated that they wanted the lawful access law changed so that the law enforcement people are allowed to lawfully intercept a wider range of communications between gangsters and gang members. As well, they want to make sure that we cut back on the two-for-one remand sentencing deals, which of course disproportionately reduce prison sentences for some violent offenders.

These two issues aren't new. These two issues have been on the table at attorneys general conferences for some time. I want to ask you, the minister, why did you not move on these as part of Bill C-14? Obviously, from Minister Oppal's remarks, it appears that he didn't think you were very enthusiastic about doing it very soon.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for those questions. It just seems like every Thursday, the Thursday question becomes the Thursday questions and becomes a longer and longer list.

Yesterday, the House adopted the budget implementation bill, which is now before the Senate. I would take this opportunity to urge all senators to deal with the bill quickly so that the funds that are provided by it will begin to flow and to help our country and Canadian families weather this economic storm as quickly as possible.

Today, we are continuing debate on the opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will begin debate on report stage of Bill C-2, the Canada-European free trade agreement, followed by Bill C-13, the Canada grains, and Bill C-7, marine liability.

Monday, March 9 and Tuesday, March 10 shall be allotted days. As to the last day in this cycle, I am pleased to announce that it will be sometime during that week after our constituency week when members return to their ridings.

On Wednesday, we will continue with the Canada-European free trade bill. It will either be at report stage or third reading, depending on the progress that we make tomorrow.

When the debate on Bill C-2 is complete, we will call for second reading debate on Bill C-14, the organized crime bill, and Bill C-15, the drug offensive bill.

As my hon. colleague knows, the official opposition House leader, there have been discussions with all parties and, at this point in time, despite the acceptance and, indeed, the willingness of the government to move forward with these two crime bills as expeditiously as possible, unfortunately that is not the case with all parties and therefore we will not be able to proceed as quickly as possible.

However, on behalf of all Canadians who are worried about their safety and who want to move forward with this type of legislation, I do thank the hon. member and his party, the Liberal Party, for their support to try to move these bills very quickly through the process.

Following the justice bills, we will continue with the uncompleted business schedule for tomorrow, plus the new bill that was tabled this morning, Bill C-17, An Act to recognize Beechwood Cemetery as the national cemetery of Canada. I understand there may be interest in expediting this bill. I would hope, unlike the justice bills, that perhaps we can get agreement from all four parties to move very quickly with this bill at all stages and move it through.

As to private member's Bill C-285, I am always interested in discussing ways in which we can move quickly with legislation. This government certainly is interested in getting action on behalf of Canadians as fast as possible on all legislation that will positively impact on their lives. I am always open to those types of discussions.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as usual on a Thursday, I would like to ask the government House leader about his work plan for the coming week and for the week following the regular mid-March break.

In particular, the House is anxious to know when the minister will designate all three of the remaining supply days. The last supply day, as the House knows, is especially important because that will be the day upon which any interim supply bill, including the Prime Minister's request for an extraordinary $3 billion, will be dealt with. Therefore, we would like to know when that supply bill is coming.

Of course, five sitting days before the final supply day is the date upon which the government must table its first report to Parliament accounting for its fight against the recession. That last supply day date, therefore, is an important date for the House to know.

Secondly, would the minister commit today that his government will consider fast-tracking Bill C-285 standing on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine? The bill deals with the modernization of investigative techniques in the fight against drugs, gangs and other criminal matters. It is one of the measures specifically requested urgently by the province of British Columbia. Therefore, is the government ready to expedite that bill?

Finally, could I ask if there is general consent in the House today to fast-track the government's bills, Bill C-14 and Bill C-15, also dealing with gangs and drugs so that they both could be passed here and sent to the Senate before the end of next week? Would there be unanimous consent to move these two bills quickly? If there is, the official opposition would be prepared to move the appropriate motion right now.

Tackling Violent Crime

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to talk about violent crime in Calgary.

While crime is growing in our city, we are fortunate to have the leadership of police chief, Rick Hansen, Alberta justice minister, Allison Redford, and our federal government working together in a positive, coordinated way to combat this scourge.

Last spring, Parliament passed Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act. Among other things, this legislation implemented new bail provisions that will keep those accused of serious gun crimes off the streets while awaiting trial.

This government is continuing to move forward on its anti-crime agenda. Earlier today, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-14, the next step in our anti-crime agenda.

The new law will target gang violence and organized crime, including gang murders, drive-by shootings and additional protection for police and peace officers.

Calgarians want action on crime now and that is what we intend to deliver.

Criminal Code

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants).

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