This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in December 2009.
Rob Nicholson Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Criminal Code
(a) to add to the sentencing provisions for murder so that any murder committed in connection with a criminal organization is first degree murder, regardless of whether it is planned and deliberate;
(b) to create offences of intentionally discharging a firearm while being reckless about endangering the life or safety of another person, of assaulting a peace officer with a weapon or causing bodily harm and of aggravated assault of a peace officer; and
(c) to extend the duration of a recognizance to up to two years for a person who it is suspected will commit a criminal organization offence, a terrorism offence or an intimidation offence under section 423.1 if they were previously convicted of such an offence, and to clarify that the recognizance may include conditions such as electronic monitoring, participation in a treatment program and a requirement to remain in a specified geographic area.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
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.
The Deputy Speaker Andrew Scheer
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON
moved that the bill be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
Gordon O'Connor Conservative Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Daniel Petit ConservativeParliamentary 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.
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, organized crime gangs are both a national and a transnational problem. Up to 70% of the moneys that organized crime gangs derive comes from the trade in illegal drugs. They use those moneys to do other things, such as purchase and import illegal drugs. My province of British Columbia is seeing the effects of this, in bloody terms, with more than 19 murders this year.
Paul Krugman, a Nobel Laureate, made a very impressive statement. He said that if we wanted to go after organized crime, would should go after the money.
The best way to undermine organized crime is to dismantle its markets and go after its money supply. One of the ways to do that is to address the issue of drug policy in Canada.
If undermining the drug market for organized crime is one of the best ways to get rid of organized crime gangs, would my colleague try to curry favour in his party to a revised approach to substance abuse in Canada and pursue the decriminalization of the simple possession of marijuana? Would he encourage his government to look at Norway and Portugal as examples? Those countries have significantly undermined organized crime gangs and reduced the use of both hard and soft drugs, which in turn has reduced crime.
Would he also ask his government to remove its legal appeal against British Columbia? The courts have said that the government has a moral obligation to allow harm reduction strategies like Insite and the Naomi project to have national exposure.
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his interest in this bill.
His question is quite fair and appropriate. People from his province, British Columbia, have appeared before our committee. Representatives from the Vancouver Board of Trade told us that they wanted specifically to attack the element that is contributing to the wealth of all forms of organized crime, whether the Hells Angels, the mafia, and so on. We must attack the drug trade; that is important. If we cut off those organizations' source of revenue, if we are tough on that, if we can stop the drug trade, we will prevent such groups from operating, growing and terrorizing our communities. That is what we need to do.
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Speaker, my friend and I are on justice committee. We have heard from a substantial number of witnesses, none the least of whom came from the home province of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and the city of Vancouver.
My colleague might want to expound on the fact that the committee is going to Vancouver to study the very issues surrounding drug crime, gangs and organized crime.
It was made mention to drug and substance abuse, the addiction thereto and the large sums of money that the government has put forward for treatment. I do not mean giving people drugs, but giving them the kind of necessary counselling to help them shrug the habit. Could the member expound on that?
Could he also expound on some of the witness statements we received, which run counter to legalizing marijuana? If we legalize a problem, for example, marijuana, do we then say a bit of crack cocaine is okay provided a person does not have X amount?
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague through you. We both sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and his extensive experience as a former police officer is truly appreciated. He presents the viewpoint of the officers who enforce our laws.
I would like to point out that the committee will be going to Vancouver, where organized crime is flourishing, because of a special request from British Columbia. There are gunshots on the streets and drive-by shootings there. The situation is so serious that members of the Chamber of Commerce, a non-governmental organization, are asking Parliament to visit to see how dangerous the city has become.
I would like to mention something else in reply to my colleague's question. Despite everything that is being said, our government is pursuing two objectives. Addicts will get treatment but traffickers will be jailed. Canadians must realize that. We will heal drug addicts but we will put traffickers in jail. That is for sure.
I would also like to say, in response to my colleague's question, that our government has provided a great deal of money to help addicts. We are not going to lock up addicts; we are going to heal them. I can assure you that our government will lock up traffickers. We are known for being very strong in that area. That is what we must do and that is what the citizens of Vancouver have asked us to do. For that reason we are going to Vancouver to see for ourselves whether organized crime is truly becoming stronger. We want to eliminate sources of income for organized gangs, the mafia and such groups by combatting the drug trade.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the issue of mandatory minimums has seized Parliament on a number of occasions. I note that paragraph 244(2)(i) deals with intentionally discharging a firearm. Under the mandatory minimums, it says that if it is a prohibited firearm, the mandatory minimum is five years for a first offence and seven years for a second or subsequent offences. However, if it is not a restricted firearm, it is four years.
With respect to the use of firearms, whether restricted or not, and the mandatory minimums, why is there a difference of one year when it would appear, from a public safety and criminal justice perspective, that the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence related to organized crime is equally as serious to the public interest?
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.
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.
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a number of issues that police officers in my province and across the country have been raising. He clearly articulated the asks from our Attorney General in British Columbia. In British Columbia, which, like the rest of the country but perhaps more so in my province, has very serious problem of organized crime.
I would like the member to expand on the challenges that police officers have in terms of being able to wiretap and follow electronic communications, and the ways in which they are able to improve the manner in which prosecutions take place.
We have a serious challenge right now I know police officers are very frustrated with the manner in which prosecutions take place within our courts.
The other question I have for him goes back to the discourse that took place a little while ago between members of the Conservative Party which illustrated the difference in approach we have on a serious underlying issue affecting organized crime.
In many ways we are dealing with the symptoms of the problem and not the underlying problem. As I said, I go back to Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate for economics, who said, “If you want to go after organized crime, you've got to go after their financial underpinnings”. That is the worst news that organized crime could ever have.
As one of my colleagues from the Conservative Party said, we need to enable people to shrug off addictions. Well, it is not as simple as that. As a physician, addictions are very complicated. They are rooted in neurochemical changes in the brain and extremely difficult to deal with. Many of the people who have substance abuse problems have what we call dual diagnosis. They also have a psychiatric problem.
Some very innovative addiction programs have been implemented. One of them in British Columbia is the NAOMI project started by Dr. Julio Montaner. it is a narcotics substitution program where under a physician's care the person actually receives a narcotic, which severs the tie between the addict and the crime that he or she engages in on the street, and the ties to organized crime.
What was found is that 60% of those hard-core narcotics addicts were off the street, back with their families and leading a life that was within the law. They were able to get back to work and get this treatment that they required.
Unfortunately, the government opposes that. In fact, it is using judicial means and mechanisms to prevent communities in our country from getting access to the medically proven, harm reduction strategies that work and, ultimately, reduce crime, reduce harm, reduce costs and reduce all the things that all of us want to accomplish.
Does my friend, who is a lawyer, not think that the government has a moral obligation to allow communities across our country to have access to the medically proven, harm reduction strategies that work, like the North American opiate medication initiative, the NAOMI project, in Vancouver?
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca used the term “moral obligation”; does the government have a moral obligation. I think he would agree with me that it had a moral obligation to intervene in the case of a Canadian on death row in Montana. It took a federal court to force it to do that. The Conservatives had a moral obligation to deal with the case of Omar Khadr, who is still at Guantanamo Bay, a Canadian citizen who was a child soldier. It took the federal court yesterday to force them to do that.
I do not have a lot of confidence that the Conservative government accepts it has a moral obligation, as my colleague from British Columbia so correctly identified, to treat the addiction problem as one of health. My colleague, being a physician, knows more than I would about some of the medical aspects of addiction, but what I do know is that in British Columbia there have been a number of very progressive initiatives, whether it is Insite in Vancouver or whether it is the project he spoke about a minute ago. These initiatives have been supported by public health officials, by provincial law enforcement officials, by the Government of British Columbia. In our view, they are a very important part of dealing with crime prevention, treating the root cause of crime, which in many cases can be addiction, or as my colleague noted, in some cases can also involve a complex or difficult mental illness.
The Conservative government focuses on punishing those who commit crimes, instead of trying to help prevent crimes and deal with some of the root causes of crimes, such as addiction. Conservatives talk about an announcement they made some years ago about a drug strategy. That will do very little compared to supporting public health authorities and the provincial government of British Columbia in the example my colleague used.
My colleague also spoke about the issue of modernizing investigative techniques, lawful access, as it is known. He is absolutely right. The government has hesitated and has taken a great deal of time to introduce a bill that would modernize the ability of the police to deal with electronic surveillance of organized crime groups in a way that recognizes 21st century technology and not technology or instruments of communication that may have been around 50 years ago.
My colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has a private member's bill that deals with exactly that issue. I think it was in 2005 that the then minister of public safety in a previous Liberal government introduced a bill, which was not passed by the time the 2005-06 election was called, to modernize investigative techniques and to give the police the tools they desperately need to go after these organized crime groups.
I agree with my colleague. There is very much a hesitation on the part of the government to complete the puzzle. Conservatives focus on one narrow band of the problem and we supported them with respect to increasing penalties, but we also believe they need a more comprehensive approach and they need to accept that harm reduction on addictions and some of the health-based research and projects that have begun in some parts of the country also form a very important part of reducing crime and helping people live healthy and productive lives.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the previous questioner who is a medical doctor when he observed that we have to go after the financial underpinnings of this issue. The best thing we can do to fight organized crime is to take away the proceeds of crime, the benefits and gains they make as a result of crime. The Conservatives really enjoy the public relations bump they get from talking about how tough they are on crime, and we see that they are not really that tough. It takes them forever to get actions before the House and they fail to deal with the root causes of the crime. In this particular case, the member is dead on when he says that if we can take steps to fight organized crime, that will help solve this problem.
In Manitoba, we had one day last month where we had zero auto thefts, after being the auto theft capital of Canada for a number of years, because we set up a system whereby we have enforced immobilizers in cars. The auto insurance company in Manitoba pays for the installation of immobilizers and gives people a reduction in their car insurance. We have a suppression program, too, to chase down the chronic car thieves. We have managed to cut that down to having no car thefts over a 24-hour period last month. So there is proof that we can actually achieve results if we are determined to do something about the problem.
Dominic LeBlanc Liberal Beauséjour, NB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona is absolutely right, as was the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. If we want to attack the problem of organized crime, unlike the government simply focusing on the back end, on imposing stiff penalties, which will not be a complete answer, one needs to choke off the access to money. Whether it is the trafficking of drugs, prostitution, human trafficking, or increasingly, the theft of automobiles, if we can choke off the access to money that these organized crime groups need, it will go a long way toward reducing the crime rate and improving public safety in communities.
My colleague who just made a comment is a member of Parliament from the Winnipeg area. He is absolutely right. The problem of auto theft in Winnipeg has been a very serious issue. That is why we intend to attack that problem.
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.
The Deputy Speaker Andrew Scheer
The hon. member will have six minutes after oral questions to complete his remarks.
We will now move on to statements by members The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.
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.
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.
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 fundamentally agree with what the hon. member has said. The gist of the New Democrat position has been and continues to be that we take a comprehensive approach to this very complex problem.
Prevention is the key aspect that is always missing from the current government's position on crime. In fact, it is even worse than that. It is my understanding that the amount of prevention moneys that were available in 2008 were not even spent in their entirety.
The government, besides not putting money into specific crime prevention programs, also completely fails to recognize the underlying social causes that lead to increased criminal behaviour.
Again, the member is quite right that the bill is not comprehensive. In fairness to the government, I do not think it is intended to be. It is part of a suite of bills that the government has put forward. I would put this statute in that context. What is missing from the government is that the suite of bills the government has put forward is not complete. It is a one bedroom apartment when what we need is a complete house of legislation.
I also point out that the bill has a bit of an aspect of window dressing. Its main aspect of making gang related shootings and killings a first degree murder really does not help much. It would probably be the case now that any gang related murder would be planned and deliberate under current legislation. We would press the government to bring in meaningful legislation in that regard.
Andrew Saxton ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague keeps saying that the government is doing nothing to help prevention. I point out that individuals living in Vancouver's downtown eastside will benefit from two new treatment services thanks to an investment by the Government of Canada.
These two new treatment initiatives represent the creation of treatment stabilization beds and the launch of an effective service delivery model, so persons with more disabling disorders have a range of treatment options. As part of the national anti-drug strategies treatment action plan, these new and comprehensive treatment service initiatives are aimed at helping individuals with complex, mental health and addiction problems, with a focus on women involved in the sex trade living in Vancouver's downtown eastside. This is just one of the many things we are doing to help prevention.
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I did say, or would say, the government has spent nothing on prevention, or is not committed to any prevention. What I said was its attention to prevention is weak and insufficient, and I would urge the government to do more.
I point out that we passed a motion in the House, democratically, that urged the government to increase EI benefits to 60% of wages, and the government has refused to implement that. What does that mean? Recently I read that the incidence of domestic and spousal assaults had gone up. I am told by social scientists and experts that this always happens. There is always a correlation between increased spousal assaults and violence in the home when there is increased financial insecurity.
When the government had a chance to put more money in the hands of families that need it right now, it said no.
My friend points to two treatment centres in Canada as being their response to prevention of crime on a national level. That is grossly insufficient and it is no answer to Canadians.
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, one of the most effective prevention measures is a head start-like program. Last week, with Jane Goodall and the Jane Goodall Foundation and the Assembly of First Nations and Chief Phil Fontaine, we rolled out a head start program called the “Roots and Shoots Program for Children”. I compliment Dr. Gina Cosentino from the Assembly of First Nations, Barbara Cartwright and Jane Lawton at the Jane Goodall foundation for their hard work in making this happen. This would not have happened without them.
What we know, and recent evidence looking at neurosciences shows this very clearly, that the presence of abuse, the withdrawal of basic needs in a child can have profound, long-lasting effects well into adulthood. In fact, it even puts people at risk of suicide, depression and an inability to cope with life's stresses. We have even seen genetic markers that show early childhood abuse or the withdrawal of the basic needs of a child has this profound impact.
Conversely, enabling children to have a loving, caring environment with proper parenting and proper nutrition shows very clearly that it can have a positive effect. Head start programs are proven to reduce youth crime by 60%, teen pregnancies and keep kid in school longer.
Does my hon. colleague not think the government should bury its ideology, work with the provinces to implement a head start-like program for children and the “Roots and Shoots Program for Children”?
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, a few days ago representatives of the Canadian Teachers' Federation visited me in my office in Parliament. They talked to me about poverty in students and children, particularly young children aged 5 to 11. They reminded me that the House passed a resolution in 1989 to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. It is now 20 years later and the poverty statistics for children in Canada are exactly the same. We have made no progress.
When the Conservatives try to talk about prevention programs, I would remind them that it would start with ensuring that our children have the ability to go to school and pay attention and live lives of dignity. Why? Because children, as the teachers told me, come to school poorly dressed and hungry. They cannot pay attention. They are distracted. They are ashamed. Their parents move around and they have to change schools, so they do not have educational stability. What happens to these kids when they do not get that early head start in life? What happens to these kids when they are 14, 15 and 16 and do not have an educational future in which to look forward?
These conditions lead many children, who have poor prospects for the future, to despair. Every dollar we invest in our young people, in our children in programs like head start, as my hon. colleague just pointed out, is true crime prevention. It is an investment in our future that all parliamentarians should support, and I urge them to do so.
Some hon. members
Question.
The Deputy Speaker Andrew Scheer
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?