Bill C-309 (Historical)

Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (concealment of identity)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to wear a mask or other disguise to conceal one’s identity while taking part in a riot or an unlawful assembly.

Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity During Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for the last several nights fires have been burning in the streets of Montreal. Police officers and journalists have been assaulted, stores and other private property were vandalized, and over 85 people have been arrested in riots that started on Tuesday.

My private member's bill, Bill C-309, would protect Canadians from these crimes and would allow police to arrest masked troublemakers before these unlawful assemblies became full-fledged riots. It would defend Canadians and their livelihoods from senseless violence while helping maintain the right of all citizens to peaceful protest.

The NDP has refused to support this sorely needed measure. In light of the Montreal riots, will the NDP reconsider its dangerous position and help protect the businesses and citizens of Montreal, Quebec, and all of Canada?

In light of the riots in Montreal, will the NDP review its dangerous position and help protect the businesses and residents of Montreal, Quebec City and all of Canada?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-309.

The House resumed from February 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-309, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (concealment of identity), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have had some excellent debate on my private member's Bill C-309, the preventing persons from concealing their identity during riots or unlawful assemblies act.

Bill C-309 would improve public safety. There is a great risk of injury to anyone involved in, or in the proximity of, an unlawful gathering or a riot.

Those risks are only compounded when people intent on causing trouble wear masks and conceal their identity. Police say the main reasons masks are worn in a riot are for the purpose of committing crimes or intimidation. Wearing disguises in such chaotic situations emboldens offenders by giving them the anonymity to commit crimes without fear of consequences. They know that they are not likely to face prosecution if they cannot be identified.

I do not think any member in the House would deny that it is in the public interest to stop riotous behaviour as quickly as possible. Therefore, Bill C-309 aims to strip away the anonymity that criminals depend on by making the wearing of a mask without lawful excuse a new offence. The ability to remove people who don a mask to deliberately cause trouble would be a new tool for police to prevent these individuals from instigating or committing criminal acts.

As we bring second reading debate to a close, I would like to encourage all members to support the bill. To those who are still undecided, I would like to speak now from the perspective of the many police officers, business owners and individual citizens who have expressed their support for this legislation. Police chiefs in Calgary, Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria all support its aims.

Recently, Toronto police officers took me on a tour of the streets that were hardest hit during a riot there. It was an eye-opener to see first-hand the route that the rioters took and to have police explain their efforts to try to control such a volatile situation.

A group of masked individuals, who police say showed up with the intent to cause trouble, inflicted massive damage on private businesses and torched four police cars along the way. According to best estimates by police, businesses endured $2.5 million worth of damage.

I certainly hope that the NDP member for Trinity—Spadina and the Liberal member for Toronto Centre, who represent the area of Toronto that was most affected, are paying very close attention. I hope that those members' votes on the bill will reflect a determination to stop that kind of mayhem from happening again against their constituents and business owners.

Business owners and operators are virtually sitting ducks when riots occur. Storefronts seem to bear the brunt of the destruction. It does not matter how large or small the operation, these are all businesses that have made investments in our local economies. They employ our citizens. They pay taxes to all levels of government. They improve our quality of life by providing services for consumers. They do not deserve to be sitting ducks for violent masked thugs.

Measures to deter riots from escalating are the best safeguards against the destructive results of a riot. Business owners who have suffered loss certainly know this.

The Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association is composed of member businesses that were hardest hit by the riot in that city. It has unanimously endorsed this legislation. I would like to read its letter of support. I certainly hope the Liberal member for Vancouver Centre, who is supposed to represent the interests of those business owners, will take note and consider the concerns of her constituents when she votes on this bill. To quote the DVBIA:

June 15, 2011 is a dark moment in our city's history that traumatized thousands of residents, employees and hard-working business people.

The property damage incurred that evening combined with the looting that took place is in the millions of dollars. Vancouver's picture postcard image was sullied by the actions of reckless and irresponsible individuals who have no respect for the laws of our country.

Any and all efforts to further strengthen the laws to mitigate any unlawful public gatherings... are welcomed by our members.

The last word goes to Brian Rogers, a resident of Baie-d'Urfé, Quebec, who is a constituent of the Liberal member for Lac-Saint-Louis. He wrote:

Congratulations on introducing your bill which would make it illegal to wear a mask during a riot or civil insurrection. Its moral intention is entirely in line with Canada's heritage of the common law...

I urge all members to join me in improving public safety by taking away criminals' ability to hide in plain sight during a riot.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak in favour of Bill C-309, introduced by the member for Wild Rose.

I will approach this from a different realm, that being my experience as a police officer. I will speak to a specific event that occurred on July 28, 1991, which was a defining moment for Penticton, British Columbia. It pertains to a riot which I investigated. I can speak to this bill with some knowledge regarding riots and unlawful assemblies.

On July 28, 1991, at 41 minutes after midnight, the mayor of Penticton made a proclamation under section 67 of the Criminal Code with regard to an unlawful assembly and riot situation. The police waited 30 minutes before taking action, as required under the Criminal Code. At one o'clock in the morning, the police took action on approximately 5,000 to 10,000 people who had congregated in the downtown area of Penticton, which is commonly referred to as Main Street and Lakeshore Drive. My colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla will remember it well. It was a night like no other.

When police officers are involved in a riot, their hearts are pumping and they are thinking at a million miles an hour as to what they can do to try and quell the situation and minimize the damage that will occur or has occurred. As a result of that, they are trying to be as proactive as possible.

As opposed to the member who spoke before me, I see this as a proactive bill. I will explain why.

In 1991 we did not have the electronics we have today; we had videotape and TV cameras. We had one sole purpose: we had to be able to identify people. Under sections 67 and 68 of the Criminal Code, one must be identified to be convicted in a court of law. Back in 1991, those who were masked, and there were many, had to be ignored because we could not identify them. As a result, there was a lot of damage that had been done on Main Street and a couple of other streets down in the lower part of Penticton that we could do nothing about by people who had concealed their faces.

Members must understand that the police officers were put under a lot of constraints at that time. There were not a lot of us. There were only 38 officers to deal with about 5,000 people. We did what we could do. The main thing we wanted to do that night was disperse the crowd, but we could have done a lot more had this law been in place. We could have started apprehending people immediately, thus hopefully stopping other crimes from occurring, such as wilful damage, break and enter, and theft.

This bill which the member for Wild Rose has brought forward is proactive. I will explain why.

During a riot, normally people conceal their identity for three reasons. The first and most important is they want to conceal their identity so that the police cannot identify them. The second is that under most circumstances during a riot tear gas is lobbed and one can be protected from it by wearing a mask. The third is that it empowers people to do something they may not normally do if they could be identified by the police. I believe that is what the bill is all about, taking the empowerment away from those who believe they have carte blanche during a riot or unlawful assembly.

The intent of Bill C-309 is to do just that, to take away the empowerment. I do not believe this is trying to throw people in jail for the sake of throwing them in jail.

I understand that after 30 minutes of the proclamation being read under section 68 of the Criminal Code, anyone who does not disperse can be arrested. It is at the discretion of the police officer whether or not that person should be arrested.

As the member who spoke before me has said, for those who are trying to flee, in all likelihood, if the police are coming toward those people and they run away, that is a good thing, because we would like them to get out of the area. We want to get the people who provoke the police, and they normally are the ones who have their faces concealed.

The addition of a charge under these circumstances is quite relevant. The relevancy is that those who cover their faces with a disguise or a mask are the ones who are provoking the riot to continue.

It is very difficult for the police to stop something when they do not have the power to stop it.

Bill C-309, brought forward by the member for Wild Rose, is an exceptional bill. It would help police immensely. It would not be used during peaceful demonstrations. It would not be used to discourage people from providing their opinion during a peaceful demonstration, but should the Riot Act be read, the game would change, and all of a sudden it would not be a peaceful situation.

The bill would allow police to arrest those who conceal their identity. It would stop crime from happening before it happened. It would dissuade people from continuing an act of empowerment and egging on the police. It may stop a riot a couple of hours earlier. That is what it is all about. It is about trying to sway people to be peaceful, as opposed to being in a riotous state.

As a police officer who has been involved in a riot, I know it is not fun. It is very dangerous for everyone involved because everyone is pumped up and wants to do something.

That night in Penticton, there was over half a million dollars damage done in under two hours. I do not know how much damage was done at the G20 summit, but I do know that we could have prevented at least some of it had the bill been in place.

This would help police officers move forward so they can immediately arrest someone who is wearing a mask and then identify the person. The sole reason for the bill is to identify those people who have masked themselves.

Again, I appreciate the bill being brought forward by the member for Wild Rose. It would be a great opportunity for the police to use it when they need to. It would not be abused. I believe the bill would dissuade people in the future from entering into riotous situations and/or unlawful assemblies.

I do not have much more to say. I wanted to speak to my experience. I believe that this bill would be a great move forward for the police community.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

It is unfortunate the hon. members cannot behave in an honourable way and allow a person to speak without heckling, as we did them. It just shows what they are.

Lawful assembly is something that is held sacred in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When an assembly turns unlawful and people are wearing a mask, are they then going to be held liable, through this bill, for being part of this assembly even though they may not be committing a criminal act? How does one prove intent? How does one show intent as people are running through the streets trying to get away from a riotous situation? If they happen to be wearing masks because it is cold in the winter in Canada, would they be held liable because they are wearing masks but are just trying to get out of a dangerous situation?

It is unfortunate that the government feels that it needs to tackle a situation with a bazooka in order to feel better about itself, but I guess that is what it needs to do. However, we on this side question the actual need, as well as the intent of a bill such as Bill C-309.

Lawful assembly is something that is part of our rights as Canadians and a bill like this may deter those rights. What I fear it would deter is people's safety and comfort in feeling that they can express their views in a public manner in safety.

It seems to me that people will become less and less inclined to speak out against the government and against wrongdoing. The civil rights movement was built on civil disobedience. When laws are unjust, one of the recourses citizens have is to take to the streets and speak their minds. My fear is that a bill like this would be more of a deterrent to that aspect of free speech, as opposed to protecting property and streets after the fact.

Why does the government feel the need to act only after the fact? Why is it that these bills have come forward? There have been three, as I said before. One bill would put people in jail for defacing monuments, as opposed to educating and rehabilitating individuals. Another bill would put people in jail for telling people they cannot fly the flag, rather than developing a program to make Canadians proud of the flag, proud of the work Canada does and proud of what Canada represents. Now we have a bill that would throw people in prison for wearing a mask. If an individual were to wear a mask while defacing a monument and telling somebody else not to fly the flag, does that mean the person would get 15 years in prison? Is it concurrent? Is it added on to? We do not know.

The government comes across to this side of the House and I am sure to the majority of Canadians as they see more of these bills, as a vindictive and punitive government, as a government that does not respect Canadians, that does not have faith or confidence in Canadians, that feels it has to legislate Canadians into obedience and the government's way of thinking. That is a sad indictment of the group of people that is supposed to be taking care of Canadians and looking after Canadian needs, not after the fact but before the fact.

This bill is so pointless that I do not really have that much more to say. I leave members with these questions: Why is it that the government needs to act after the fact? Why is it that the government feels it has to be punitive in order to get its point across? Why does the government not trust Canadians? Why does the government not believe that Canadians can learn through positive reinforcement rather than punitive, vindictive and sorely misguided options?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of private member's Bill C-309 introduced in the House of Commons on October 3.

In my remarks today, I will explain why Bill C-309, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (concealment of identity), is consistent with our government's commitment to protect law-abiding citizens and keep our communities safe.

When my colleague from Wild Rose introduced the bill, he indicated two reasons for doing so. The first reason was to create two new offences to discourage the wearing of a mask to conceal identity during an unlawful assembly or riot. Second, my colleague indicated that these offences would facilitate the arrest of rioters at early stages of the commission of these offence.

Why is this important?

First, the results of the bill would be safer communities, which, again, is our government's commitment, and to protect those who lawfully assemble with peaceful intentions, as well as to protect the businesses and properties that are surrounded during protests or other activities.

The volatility and danger of riots has long been recognized at common law. This criminal behaviour is made more serious by wearing a mask for the express purpose of making it more difficult to identify the persons taking part in riots and unlawful assemblies.

As members know, it is quite easy to pull out a digital camera on a BlackBerry or an iPhone, which is why we have seen over the last year people wearing masks during riots. There is an express intent to conceal their identity during criminal behaviour. The bill has been introduced to deal with this issue, to deter people from escalating into the cause of rioting and to hold them accountable for such actions.

The Criminal Code already contains the offence of being a member of an unlawful assembly and taking part in a riot. However, this bill would add a new offence to each of these provisions to address wearing a mask or a disguise to conceal identity without lawful excuse during the commission of either of these offences. It would also provide new penalties to reflect the more serious nature of the new offences.

At the present time, taking part in a riot is an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of imprisonment of two years. The new offence in the bill for taking part in a riot while wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal the identity without lawful excuse would be an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years.

Similarly, the current offence for being a member of an unlawful assembly is a summary conviction offence, which is less serious than an indictable offence, with a maximum penalty of a $5,000 fine and/or a maximum term of imprisonment of six months. This difference in penalty reflects the fact that an unlawful assembly precedes a riot.

Bill C-309 would create a new offence of being a member of an unlawful assembly while wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal identity without lawful excuse. The new offence would be a dual procedure offence with a maximum penalty of $5,000 and six months' imprisonment if the prosecution elects to proceed by summary conviction and a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment if the offence is proceeded with as an indictable offence.

It should be noted that Bill C-309 would fill a gap in the current law. At the present time, persons who wear masks or disguises with the intent to commit an indictable offence, including taking part of a riot, is subject to an offence under subsection 351(2) of the Criminal Code and is liable to a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years.

However, subsection 351(2) does not apply to summary conviction offences. This means that the Criminal Code does not specifically address the situation of persons participating in an unlawful assembly who wear a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity without lawful excuse.

Essentially, what this means is that when someone participating in a riot knows that he or she will be captured on video on a cellphone and puts on that mask, we now have a way to hold him or her to account in a much clearer way than is currently outlined in common law.

To harmonize maximum penalties available for wearing a mask to disguise while taking part in a riot, and I believe my colleague opposite had discussed this earlier, this government will support an amendment to raise the maximum penalty for the new offence in the bill from 5 years to 10 years.

I want to assure members of this House that the new bill would not target people who wear masks or costumes that may conceal their identity while they are engaged in lawful protests, marches, gatherings or other activities commonly associated with the exercise of freedom and expression of lawful assembly. I will re-emphasize that this would not affect people who are protesting peacefully or are within the context of a law-abiding activity. This would affect people, when the riot act has been called, who don a mask to conceal their identity.

The rights to freedom of expression and lawful assembly are specifically and expressly recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will explain why this bill would not endanger any of these freedoms.

First, a person cannot be charged with either of the new offences in the bill unless he or she is already engaged in committing the criminal offence of being a member of an unlawful assembly or taking part in a riot. It is only during the commission of either of these offences that the new offence provisions may apply.

A second requirement is that the wearing of the mask or other disguise during the commission of the offence of being part of a riot or unlawful assembly must be done for a specific purpose. This level of intent is referred to as “specific intent” and it is a higher level of intent than general intent.

The prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was wearing the mask or other disguise for the purpose of concealing his or her identity while engaged in criminal activity. Implied in this is the concept that the person is concealing his or her identity for an unlawful purpose. Specifically, the person is concealing his or her identity to make it more difficult to be identified for the lawful purpose of law enforcement. As I will discuss in more detail in a moment, this is important because a person who wears a mask for a lawful purpose, such as safety reasons, does not have the specific intent to conceal his or her identity.

The reference to “without a lawful excuse” of each of the new offences in Bill C-309 confirms that the defence of lawful excuse applies to the new offences. This means that even if a person is wearing a mask or disguise to conceal his or her identity while committing the criminal offence of taking part in a riot or participating in an unlawful assembly, he or she would have a defence if the reason for concealing his or her identity is a lawful one. I will explain what I mean by this.

Although the situation may arise, in rare cases there may be circumstances where a person taking part in a riot is, for example, wearing a mask to conceal his or her identity to ensure that he or she is not recognized by someone at the riot who is a threat to his or her personal safety. I expect that in most cases it would be clear from the circumstances that the person is wearing a mask or disguise for the purpose of facilitating his or her anonymous participation in the riot.

As with all criminal offences, the prosecution would be required to prove the intent element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the defence of lawful excuses are available to ensure that the new offences with higher penalties do not apply to people who wear masks for lawful purposes, even if they are a member of an unlawful assembly or take part in a riot.

I would like to stress that although these people may not be liable to be charged with one of the new offences in the bill, the current Criminal Code provisions still apply and, thus, these people remain accountable to Canadians for their criminal behaviour.

In closing, I believe this legislation is important because it fills a gap in the current law and clearly denounces the wearing of masks or other disguises to conceal identity without lawful excuse during an unlawful assembly or riot. By denouncing this behaviour that is the antithesis of lawful expression and assembly, the bill underscores the Canadian values of freedom, tolerance, respect and rule of law.

Therefore, for those who have been saying that this would hinder people who are participating in peaceful protest, I believe that it would the opposite. It would deter those who would come, escalate the situation into a riot and then try to conceal their identity so that they are not held accountable to law-abiding Canadian citizens.

At the end of the day, I think a lot of Canadians were shocked by the riotous activity that occurred in two Canadian cities over the last year. This bill is in response to that. As a government, we want to send a strong message to Canadians that we are committed to safe streets and safe communities, and to ensuring that businesses are protected and that the activity of peaceful protest can go on as part of Canadians' rights and freedoms.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-309.

I know issues related to justice and to making our communities a better place to live concern all members of Parliament as we try to make a difference in improving the quality for the citizens we represent. I look at Bill C-309 as a genuine attempt at making a difference in certain situations.

I am sure we can all reflect on some of the riots that have occurred in the past in Canada and abroad. Valid arguments have been made that we need to do more to protect our citizens, police agencies, law enforcement officers and individuals who are called in to riot situations. I think of individuals such as first responders, paramedics, ambulance attendants and fire personnel. These individuals put their life on the line in many situations in which the average individual is not obligated to participate.

We want to be sensitive and do the right thing to protect those individuals and, as I mentioned, the many different police agencies in situations that come before us for a wide variety of reasons. I could cite the old G20 and G8 conferences that were conducted.

Television networks across Canada televised some of the rioting that took place as a result of the G8 and G20. What Canadians saw on TV or in the pictures that were published left a lasting impression in their minds. One needs to be very sensitive to what our population as a whole thinks and how those people want politicians to respond to what they see.

A vast majority of protestors see a situation or a government and the many flaws that a government might have or want to propose throughout the years. In this case, governments from across the world came to Canada. We have to go the extra mile to ensure all residents of Canada have the right to express themselves, to show up and protest the issues that are important to them.

A vast majority of protestors are good, law-abiding citizens who want to express how they feel about important issues. Unfortunately, at times, that could lead to situations which become dangerous. What might start off as a peaceful demonstration will quite often have people come in to aggravate things. In essence, they are there to try to agitate and cause violent reactions.

It is important for us to recognize the validity of protests and the freedoms of individuals to participate in that process.

On the other hand, we have other types of situations that come before. We can look to Vancouver at the celebrations that followed the Stanley Cup, where citizens came to the street. Once again, a vast majority of those who participated came out because of that high sense of civic pride. They felt good about the Stanley Cup and the fact that Vancouver had made it into the playoffs. They wanted to share that experience and those emotions in a large gathering.

Much like protests that take place in Toronto, unfortunately, individuals will get themselves into these large crowds to aggravate, to try to cause problems for the community as a whole. It raises the issue of safety. All of us, I suspect, would argue that instigators are the ones on which we need to focus some attention. It is reasonable for us to try to come up with ways that will make a difference.

I see this private member's bill before us as a bill in which the member has given a personal assessment of how he feels on the issue. In reading his comments, I understand that he has done some consultation. However, more important, his comments indicate that he would be open to the process of committee and the possibility of making changes to the proposed legislation. I am encouraged by that in the sense that we have to go the extra mile to ensure we are not, in any fashion whatsoever and in no way, telling residents, citizens, landed immigrants and the like that they do not have the right to assemble. In the vast majority of cases, 99% plus, we should encourage people to convene and share their ideas, to share their sense of civic pride.

There are issues that will come and go and some of those issues will ignite. When they do, we have to ensure there are things in place that allow Canadians to vet themselves. There is a very good example that we have debated for the last week or so, and that is the whole issue surrounding pensions. I can envision that in the future large numbers of Canadians will get quite upset at the government for its plan. A budget will be presented and within it more detailed explanations will be given as to what will happen with our pension programs.

I suspect there will be a reaction to it and I, for one, will encourage individuals to participate in lawful gatherings in order to express their concerns. That is why it is so critically important, as we debate this bill, that we send a very strong, clear and succinct message to Canadians as a whole that as parliamentarians we view large gatherings of people as something good. We see them playing an important role in democracy, whether it is the protesting of issues or even, for that matter, supporting issues. I will make quick reference to Veterans Day and the large gatherings for our veterans, as well as large gatherings for sporting activities. It is something we need to underline.

The core of the bill suggests that there are those who gather with the idea of instigating in an unlawful way by using masks or disguises in order to evade being identified and we are right to be concerned. The bill at least attempts to bring that issue to the fore.

After today's debate, I believe the government might be in a better position to evaluate. I know one member of the Conservative caucus has suggested 10 years versus 5 years. The current bill, I believe, suggests 5 years as a potential penalty.

However, I do not want the specific debate on masks and disguises to take away--

The House resumed from November 17, 2011, consideration of the motion that Bill C-309, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (concealment of identity), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-309, which is a private member's bill and not a government bill. We keep seeing more of these bills from the opposite side where everybody decides that they want to have a crack at the Criminal Code because, for some reason or another, the Criminal Code is inadequate to handle crime.

I have a copy of the Criminal Code here and it is a very heavy document. It is about three inches thick and it has a lot of crimes in it and yet there do not seem to be enough crimes for the members opposite so we need to add more.

I have heard the members opposite say that there was no proof that the long gun registry prevented one crime. I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety says that is “true, true, true”, but I do not agree with her. I invite her to look at the alternative title. This act may be cited as the preventing persons from concealing their identity during riots and unlawful assembly act. So, by making it a crime to wear a mask during a riot, that would actually prevent it from happening. Of course it will not prevent it from happening. It would punish it by making it an additional criminal offence. Somehow, knowing where guns are, having a system that keeps track of them and prevents people from selling them willy-nilly, as in the gun registry, for example, does not prevent a single crime and does not prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands, but yet making something a crime by this bill is preventing crime.

As I say, this is a private member's bill and private members are entitled to bring whatever pieces of legislation they want. However, that also means that we need to have a good look at it.

The Criminal Code is called a code for a reason. It is a complex, interwoven series of bills brought together over time. I think the first Criminal Code in Canada was introduced in 1892 in an attempt to codify the criminal law. There have been changes made over time but it is really something that governments, not private members, should do because it is criminal law. It is a very serious matter. In this case, if this law were passed, it could make somebody liable to imprisonment for five years for being at an unlawful assembly with a mask.

It always worries me when private members start delving into the Criminal Code and looking for new offences, because they do not always read the entire Criminal Code, and I do not expect them to, so they may not know what else is in the Criminal Code. Some lawyers know perhaps a little more than some people. However, I need to point out to hon. members that it is already an offence to wear a mask with the intent to commit an indictable offence. There is already a substantive section of the Criminal Code that says a person cannot wear a mask with the intent to commit an indictable offence. It is subsection 351(2).

What are we doing creating new offences? Why are we doing that? If there is a need to charge somebody for wearing a mask with intent to commit an indictable offence, and rioting is considered an indictable offence, then the tool is already there. We need to be very careful about assemblies, whether they are lawful or unlawful and when they become unlawful and what is considered unlawful, because nobody supports rioting.

The last time I looked at the Criminal Code, smashing windows, whether one is wearing a mask or not, is a criminal offence. Burning police cars is a criminal offence. The fact that someone wears a mask is an additional criminal offence, already.

The kind of remarks we get from members opposite is that we like the idea of people burning police cars. This is the kind of talk that makes people wonder what those fellows do with their time. Do they think we like rioters? No. We have the same feelings about people taking that kind of action as they do. Those members do not have a monopoly on feeling terrible when somebody does something like that, destroying property, or police cars or starting fires. No citizen of the country enjoys that.

The member talked about the G20 in Toronto. He did not talk about the law-abiding citizens who were arrested and herded into police custody, or the tourists who happened to show up with their children and were arrested. He did not talk about the proper understanding of how crowds could be controlled.

We have to be very careful about passing laws willy-nilly on issues that are already be handled by the existing Criminal Code.

The members cannot come in here, be heroes and say that they are disgusted with rioters, so they want to have a new crime on the books. It is already a crime to engage in a riot. If we look at the definition of a riot, it does not take very much to allow a police officer to arrest somebody. Not only that, there is already a provision in the Criminal Code that makes it an indictable offence to wear a mask with the intent of committing a criminal offence. People do not even have to commit a criminal offence, they just need to have the intent to commit a criminal offence. Rioting is an indictable offence.

We have to be careful when we start taking the Criminal Code, adding sections, increasing penalties and so on. It does not serve to prevent things from happening.

Nevertheless members opposite think they have come up with behaviour that disgusts people, like rioting, and that disgusts me as much as them, and they want to create a new crime. However, it is already against the law. It is already in the Criminal Code.

If the government and the Department of Justice looks at all of these things and says that somehow or other the law is inadequate and that it wants to refine it, it is something I think all members of Parliament would like to listen to and hear the justification for it.

However to stand and say “I am disgusted with rioters, therefore we should make the penalties harsher or add new penalties” when the Criminal Code already treats it as a crime, is using Parliament for the wrong purpose.

I respect the hon. member. I know he is sincere in what he says, but to suggest that this somehow will prevent these things from happening is a bit naive, particularly when it is already a criminal offence. I have a few cases here where individuals were arrested for wearing bandannas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to add to the debate of Bill C-309, a bill to prevent persons from concealing their identities during a riot or unlawful assembly.

I would like to provide the House with a few details here with my 18 years of experience as a former RCMP officer. One of the things in my training involved the participation in a riot as part of a tactical troop. Some of the general public call it the riot squad.

What I am hearing from the opposition could not be further from the truth. It is about trying to protect the civil rights of individuals, when they demonstrate, and ensuring the public peace is upheld.

During riots or civil protests, it is appalling to watch the behaviour of certain individuals, when they are trying to promote or instigate a full out riot, and where individuals are being set up, at the expense of others, for harsh punishment or harsh injuries.

The bill, which was put forward by my colleague, the member for Wild Rose, would make it an offence to wear a mask or to otherwise conceal or disguise one's identity during riots and other unlawful assemblies.

The provisions of the bill are necessary. One might even say they are overdue, as recent events have shown. In the space of just over a year, two large cities in Canada have been the sites of major riots.

Destruction of public property was widespread when anarchists descended on Toronto, using the cover of a peaceful protest during the G20 meetings, to shatter windows, clash with police officers, and threaten innocent bystanders, even news reporters and photographers in their path. Fires burned in the streets and black smoke billowed over the skyline.

Thugs used the excuse of the Vancouver Canucks loss in the seventh game of the Stanley Cup finals to wreak havoc in that city. Police cars were overturned and businesses were broken into and looted. Canadians were heartbroken and horrified to see such mayhem in their country. It is sadly ironic that something as un-Canadian as a violent riot could happen in the wake of the most Canadian of activities, a hockey game of all things.

These riots were also an international black eye for Canada, a nation that is admired as a world leader for peace, order and safety.

These riots started in different cities under different circumstances. However, in both cities much of the violence and looting was carried out by people who concealed their faces with gas masks, bandanas, balaclavas, even hockey jerseys pulled over their noses. Other materials were used to conceal the many faces of the rioters and looters. I believe this is cowardly and the thugs knew exactly what the consequences of their criminality would be.

For the most part, these are not the actions of exuberant or inebriated people simply caught up in the moment. These were calculated efforts by people intent on criminal behaviour in order to avoid prosecution. Leaving themselves anonymous, these hoodlums felt free to assault people, and destroy public and private property.

I remember watching these individuals on the news on television dress up and proceed to smash windows, and then try to flee the scene of the crime. With BlackBerrys and YouTube, innocent good citizens chased these people down, watched them undress to join the crowd again, caught in their black apparel. The Vancouver police are still working to identify some of these rioters and bring them to justice.

I do not fault the police for the time it has taken to trace these individuals because many investigations are very complex and the complexity of this is of huge magnitude to undertake. Rather, I sympathize with the enormous task ahead, as the police tries to identify and charge the perpetrators who, in many cases, had most of their identifying features covered up.

It cannot be easy for the investigators, I know, but members of the House could help make that task less onerous in the future. They could help through the simple act of supporting Bill C-309.

How would that help? It would help in a number of ways. Most importantly, it would help deter violence at such events from escalating in the first place.

In an era of cellphones, cameras and video, when every bystander has the potential to be a reporter, a law preventing people from disguising themselves would give many people a time to pause. The deterrence value alone is of great value for police trying to control a mob and ensure the public's safety is maintained.

I am not blind to the reality, having observed this myself. While deterring crime is the reason behind any piece of criminal legislation, we know there are those who have no respect for the law, no matter what the consequences.

Bill C-309 would give the police a valuable tool to deal with them. It would be another tool in their tool kit. In a riot or an unlawful assembly, law-abiding citizens should be eager to follow police instructions to disperse and clear the area for the sake of their own personal safety, and that safety is the utmost when police are at the scene. It defies common sense to believe that any persons ignoring orders to do so and who, in addition, are wearing a mask to conceal themselves are there for any good purpose, which brings me to a point of reflection.

I remember, through all my training, having to stand in a black jumpsuit, wearing a helmet, steel toe boots, gloves, shoulder protectors and a gas mask in the heat of the day and watching the perpetrators don the same apparel; the shoulder pads, motorcycle helmets, balaclavas and gas masks. They would try to grab members' shields as they were trying to protect innocent bystanders. They would try to antagonize bystanders to start a riot. It was hard for us to be on the other side and keep our temper and watch while the media was in the middle. All these thugs are doing is using the media for their own gain.

As things stand, unless the police witness a person committing an offence, they need to prove a high level of intent before they intervene, even when a person is wearing a disguise or otherwise hiding his or her identity, even in the midst of an all out riot. This state of affairs just does not make sense.

We have 11 police officers in this caucus. Police need to have the ability to diffuse riots, just not to react. That is reacting policing, not preventive policing.

Bill C-309 would unshackle police in such situations by making the very act of wearing a mask in a riot or an unlawful assembly an offence on its own. Police would be able to identify those individuals before a major casualty took place.

Simply put, when police are engaged in measures to control a riot or unlawful assembly, as defined under sections 65 and 66 of the Criminal Code, which this bill would amend, then wearing a facial covering without lawful excuse to do so would become an offence in itself. This provision would help police deal with these individuals for the offence of wearing a mask rather than waiting to witness them commit a separate offence that could harm persons or property before they can take action.

This bill is pre-emptive in a sense that police could use their discretion to arrest or detain people who keep their faces concealed during a riot.

It is my hope that the penalties in the bill would first and foremost deter people from participating in a riot or unlawful assembly in the first place. However, for those who still choose to riot despite the consequences, police would have a new tool in their tool kit to help them control these volatile situations.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Canadians the freedom of peaceful assembly, which includes peaceful protests, and law enforcement officers understand this. They want to ensure that all people have the right to protest but, utmost, to get rid of the thugs who are causing the problems in the protests. Let those who want to demonstrate do so, but do so peacefully.

I have heard some people say that they worry that this will infringe upon that freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. Having witnessed this myself first-hand, the police are there just to maintain and ensure that the protestors are safe. This bill deals only with individuals in a riot or an unlawful assembly situation. It is obvious that peaceful assembly has left the building at this point.

Far from violating the Charter of Rights, the bill would help protect peaceful protesters by allowing police to identify those in the mix who intend to commit crimes. I find that interesting. I remember one incident where one masked protester was running back and forth trying to escalate the event.

I hope that, for the safety of the general public, members will consider Bill C-309 as it would give people the right to honestly and protectively protest in peace. I urge the House to consider Bill C-309.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-309, but I want to begin by confronting the Conservatives on their obsession with crime. We have before us a bill ostensibly produced by the folks in the Prime Minister's Office or the Conservative House leader's office. I think we need to be clear about this. Their so-called crime agenda is in full swing, predicated on ideology and not evidence. They do not believe in evidence or facts.

The Conservatives want to continue creating fear among Canadians and to perpetuate the idea that there is rampant crime on the streets, that there are riots everywhere, that the government, in response, must be brave and take decisive action to breathe life into that particular bogeyman. On the rare occasion that Conservatives might actually propose something that appears worthy of some consideration, they wonder why Canadians are suspicious.

The Conservatives' record of ignoring evidence and perpetuating fear is well-known. The fear agenda gives me rise to questions about their sincerity. One only has to look at Bill C-10, safe streets and communities act. As far as I am concerned, it should be called “keeping the myth of out of control crime alive so we can fundraise to our right-wing base act”.

For the Conservatives, repeating a myth often enough convinces them that it must be true. It is a classic right-wing Republican tactic; that is to say, the Conservatives operate not unlike a pack of hyenas. They see an opportunity to feast on the fears of Canadians, fears which are often of their own creation, and then they pounce. As part of the bullying tactics, they are always ready to attack anyone who disagrees with them, then issue a fundraising letter containing more myths. This behaviour, now firmly rooted in their political DNA, is a again not unlike the hyena, opportunistic and completely natural. Then they call it tough on crime. I call it tough on facts and evidence.

When I meet people around the country and in my riding, they are not running up to me and talking about crime or crime rates. They are more concerned about jobs and the economy. They are concerned that my riding of Charlottetown is losing 500 jobs as a result of cuts to Veterans Affairs. They are worried about the cuts to Service Canada and the closure of EI processing centres.

They do not understand why the federal government is the only level of government that will not participate in the funding to clean up a sewage problem in the Charlottetown harbour. They do not understand why the Conservatives have cancelled a cable that would ensure energy security to Prince Edward Island.

Here we are with another crime bill. Why did the member not introduce a bill to reduce poverty in Canada, a bill to help the poor, and to bring them in from the margins of poverty? Why did he not do that?

It is as if the Conservatives lie awake at night dreaming about ways to put more and more people in prison. It is an obsession rooted not in science or evidence, or even reason. It is irrational.

I want to assure the member that none of us on this side will stand by while Conservatives proffer myths or slogans. None of us on this side will tolerate the idea that because we disagree with the Conservatives on matters related to crime, that somehow we do not care or we are soft on crime. It is a falsehood and the members opposite know it. To disagree with the government is not a crime, at least not yet, but who knows?

With respect to the bill, we all witnessed what happened in Vancouver last year during the Stanley Cup. We know that the behaviour of far too many people was deplorable and criminal. None of us who sat around watching the hockey game that night and the news stories thereafter were thinking, gee, we wish there were more destruction and violence. None of us said, “Gee, I hope that guy who just set fire to the car gets away with it”. Listening to the Conservatives though, one would think that members from this side were there and involved.

I wonder what the member thinks about his own government's behaviour with respect to the G20 in Toronto. What does he think about what occurred, when at the G20 peaceful protesters, yes, peaceful protesters, were summarily denied their constitutional and charter rights to freely assemble?

What does he think, when protesters, acting peacefully, not violently, were kettled, rounded up and detained in violation of their charter rights? Why is the member not proposing a bill about protecting the rights of legitimate protesters?

What is his position on those well-documented violations of constitutional rights? Does he believe that citizens have a right to peaceful protest? Why is it that he and his government have refused thus far a public inquiry into the behaviour of the police and his own government with respect to the serious and rampant violation of constitutional rights at the G20?

The right of Canadians to assemble, and to do so peacefully, is a right protected by the charter, a document that many on the other side deep down really do detest. Rioting is already a crime, as the member knows.

The bill before us is deliberately framed in a way that if anyone were to disagree or to suggest amendments, he or she would automatically be designated as a traitor to a Conservative crime cause. Conservatives call that debate?

No one wants to support any Canadian engaging in activity that destroys property, encourages violence and rioting. None of us wish to support the deliberate concealment of someone while engaging in a riot. However, if this government were truly serious about this issue, this proposal would be on the government agenda. If it were brought in by government, it would have been open to have been tested, as required by statute by the Department of Justice, to ensure that it was constitutional.

This is a government bill in disguise. The suggestion that a backbench MP, in this environment, in the controlled and contrived Conservative government, such as the one we have now, would produce a bill without the consent of the PMO and its House leader's office is quite frankly a stretch.

If the government were serious about amending the Criminal Code to deal with aggravating circumstances, such as those contemplated in this private member's bill, it should have introduced a government bill. At least that would have allowed for greater and wider debate. The Conservatives are not interested in debate, nor facts, nor evidence. We see a sad example happening right now in the justice committee.

We will review Bill C-309, insist that it receive a thorough analysis, and if necessary, propose amendments. Until we are convinced that the bill meets the test of the charter, we will not and cannot support it.

Members should listen to this because what I am about to say will probably send shivers up the spines of the Conservatives. If we can be convinced by evidence and facts, and the testimony of experts that this bill is constitutional, then let the debate begin.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when examining the provisions of a bill, I think parliamentarians have a duty to ask themselves a simple question: will this bill improve our society? Today we are looking at Bill C-309, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (concealment of identity). I have no doubt that the author of this bill was motivated by a desire to improve public safety. That seems to be the answer the government automatically gives these days. Thus, members really need to ask themselves if this bill is an effective way to improve public safety.

Let us be clear: like all parties, the NDP condemns any vandalism and criminal behaviour at any assembly. Furthermore, we fully agree that any crime committed by someone wearing a mask deserves a tougher sentence. The NDP fully supports the sections of the Criminal Code that protect the public against seditious behaviour, vandalism and the masked individuals who commit these acts. What worries me, however, is the direction in which bills like this on public safety are taking us. I imagine this bill was drafted in response to the problem of crimes committed anonymously by people wearing masks during unlawful assemblies or riots.

No one is denying the troubling images that came out of the recent riots in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. In fact, I have a great deal of empathy for all the small businesses and shops that were damaged during these demonstrations. It is extremely sad, and I hope they will be compensated for this. In some cases, some of the offenders did indeed wear masks; I am aware of that. If this bill truly is a response to those events, then it is the responsibility of this House to determine whether it is a suitable and adequate response. Let us look at the content of this bill.

It proposes two very simple changes to the Criminal Code. Clause 2 of the bill calls for a change to section 65 of the Criminal Code making it a criminal offence to wear a mask or any other disguise when participating in a riot. The bill also proposes amending section 66 of the Criminal Code, which is essentially the same thing, but in the context of an unlawful assembly.

I want to come back to my original question: will this legislation improve our society? Changing our society for the better means recognizing a problem and being willing to solve it. As I was saying before, the NDP fully supports subsection 351(2) of the Criminal Code, which makes it an offence to cover one's face in the commission of a crime. The courts have recognized that wearing a mask during the commission of a crime can be considered an aggravating factor during sentencing. There are existing measures for handing down tougher sentences for an act committed by a criminal who wears a mask.

How will this bill help Canadians? Is the purpose of Bill C-309 to make it illegal to take part in a riot or unlawful assembly? In that case, Canadians are already protected by the Criminal Code. If the purpose of the bill is to introduce punitive measures against someone who commits a crime, such as vandalism, while taking part in a riot or unlawful assembly, Canadians are already protected by the Criminal Code, as I explained previously. If the purpose is to increase sentences for individuals who commit crimes while concealing their identity, once again, Canadians are protected by court decisions.

Under the Criminal Code, taking part in a riot or unlawful assembly and committing vandalism or other crimes during an unlawful assembly are already illegal, and concealing one's identity while committing a crime during an unlawful assembly or riot is considered to be an aggravating factor. Therefore, I question the need for this bill. I believe that it is basically redundant. The main issues of public safety that are the basis for this bill are already covered by the Criminal Code. This bill's only new contribution is to make it an offence to conceal one's identity while taking part in a riot or unlawful assembly.

According to this bill, an individual could be detained, arrested, indicted and sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison simply for being a masked spectator in the area of an unlawful assembly.

In June 2010, during the G20 in Toronto, Canadians witnessed how a small riot led to police crackdowns. The result: thousands of innocent people were arrested and detained. Approximately 1,500 Canadians were arrested or detained as a result of a riot involving fewer than 20 people. The authorities subjectively considered the whole demonstration as an unlawful assembly and took away the civil liberties of 1,500 innocent demonstrators, journalists and spectators. We must remember these events when we are considering a bill such as this one.

The limitations imposed on civil liberties to ensure public safety must be the least restrictive possible. I think that all the hon. members would agree with me on this. Otherwise, there is no limit to the restrictions that can be imposed on fundamental freedoms.

I would also like to point out that this bill takes away an individual's right to demonstrate anonymously. An individual is not necessarily going to commit a crime just because he or she is wearing a mask at a riot. It is reasonable to think that the person just wants to remain anonymous and protect his or her identity.

In the context of this bill, we must recognize the risk of political profiling of people exercising their civil liberties. Too often, 99% of protestors are peaceful, while 1% choose to vandalize. More often than not, this 1% is condemned by the vast majority of the peaceful protestors. As we saw in Toronto in June 2010, the peaceful protestors and spectators can be close to non-peaceful protestors. But this bill could lead to the arrest of innocent protestors who wear masks because of their geographic proximity to non-peaceful protestors.

It bears repeating that criminals who conceal their identity are already punished more severely in this country. I also want to point out that this bill would give judges the discretionary power under the Criminal Code to consider an offence committed while wearing a mask as an aggravating factor. Some people may consider that to be a good thing. However, a 2005 judgment by the Provincial Court of Alberta, R. v. Potter, already provides that protection.

I would like to thank the member for introducing this bill in the House. I understand the source of his concerns. However, in its current form, this bill is redundant and could have serious consequences for civil liberties in this country. I encourage members in this House to carefully examine the implications of this bill and to ask themselves whether it is worth jeopardizing our civil liberties. I am leaving it up to the House to decide on an appropriate course of action.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the member for Wild Rose for Bill C-309, for his interest in public safety and for responding to concerns raised by police officers and citizens about providing more tools where there is a need and a gap in the Criminal Code to ensure that public safety is first and foremost the goal of our government and the goal of Canadians.

I note his amendment to the Criminal Code proposes a term of five years imprisonment for offenders. However, I also know that section 351(2) of the code also has an offence for disguise with intent and it proposes a term of imprisonment not to exceed 10 years.

Has the member for Wild Rose given any consideration to amending his bill to harmonize his penalties with what is in the Criminal Code today?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

moved that Bill C-309, An Act to amend the Criminal code (concealment of identity), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open debate today on my private member's Bill C-309, the preventing persons from concealing their identity during riots and unlawful assemblies act.

This legislation would add new penalties for wearing a disguise to those sections of the Criminal Code that deal with individuals who participate in a riot or an unlawful assembly. This bill is a measured response to a problem that law enforcement officials have grappled with for years, and the need for which has been further highlighted by recent events in the cities of Toronto and Vancouver.

At the G20 meetings in Toronto, and again in Vancouver after game seven of the Stanley Cup playoffs in June, law-abiding citizens were assaulted; businesses were broken into, vandalized and looted of their merchandise; and public property owned by taxpayers, such as police cars, was torched and destroyed. These violent events had a theme in common that was noted by law enforcement officers who were working to protect public safety at the time. They noted the prevalence of people who wore masks or facial coverings to conceal their identities during the commission of criminal acts.

According to police, some of the perpetrators deliberately masked up prior to the gatherings becoming violent, while others mingled in the crowd and covered their faces in order to carry out criminal acts of opportunity. These offenders vandalized property and assaulted police officers and innocent bystanders. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Who here can forget the images from Vancouver of looters with their shirts, jackets or hockey jerseys yanked up over their face while streaming through broken store windows with heaps of stolen merchandise, or thugs jumping into the crowds to kick or hit an innocent bystander in the thick of the rioting?

These images tell a very revealing story. They tell us that criminals are well aware in this age of social media and all-pervasive cellphone cameras that they run a very high risk of their behaviour being recorded and they had better hide their identity if they want to avoid being caught and brought to justice for their actions. More and more of them are doing exactly that. In too many cases, these offenders escape identification by covering or obscuring their face at the time of the offence. This is an unacceptable state of affairs. No one should be able to commit violent and destructive crimes against persons and property with impunity under a cloak of anonymity, yet that is exactly what we have seen happen in these cases.

Police have long advised that their inability to pre-emptively deal with individuals who were concealing their identities in the middle of such explosive situations is hindering their ability to maintain control and to protect the public. Currently, there is no authority for police to pre-emptively stop people from concealing their identity in a riot. They must observe an offence before they can move to stop it, even by a masked individual and even in a riot. Their powers in these dangerous situations are reactive rather than proactive. Our Criminal Code does provide a penalty for disguise with intent in subsection 351(2).

When police in Vancouver recently recommended charges of participating in a riot against some of the suspected rioters there, they did in fact propose charges under that section in a very small number of cases, but why only in a small number of cases? In only a small number of cases where people had their faces concealed were police able to verify the suspect's identity afterwards.

The charge of disguise with intent can be a challenging one to apply, and since it is applied in the aftermath of an incident, it is not altogether helpful in actually controlling riot situations as they occur.

A police officer trying to maintain control in the midst of a riot has little time or means to meet the high level of intent needed to satisfy subsection 351(2). They are too busy defending life and limb, their own and those of the citizens they were sworn to protect. Yet police repeatedly tell us that it is these very people, those who disguise themselves and mask their faces, that are most often the instigators and the ringleaders of such trouble.

What if there were a measure designed to strip away anonymity from criminals during such disturbances? What if the very act of wearing a disguise in a riot became in and of itself an offence? What if police had the means to order those who were concealing their identities in a riot to remove their disguises or risk detainment or arrest? That would change the stakes dramatically.

People would then have a very clear choice in front of them. They could choose to remove their disguise, show their face and be identified and held accountable for their criminal actions, or they could choose not to and risk arrest for the offence of wearing a mask in a riot. Either way, public safety would be improved.

It would improve public safety by providing a new deterrent for people to wear disguises in the first place. If people think twice about concealing themselves, then surely the prospect of committing a crime without the benefit of anonymity would give them even greater pause. This would allow us to better identify people who engage in criminal riotous behaviour and it would improve the police's ability to deal with people who are wearing disguises at the time of an incident, thereby preventing them from rioting at all.

This bill is a good idea, but it is not necessarily a new idea. Other democratic governments, such as those in the United Kingdom, France and the State of New York, have developed legislation that would either limit or prohibit the wearing of disguises, masks or facial coverings. For example, in 2001, the United Kingdom passed the anti-terrorism crime and security act, which includes sections regarding the use of masks and disguises.

It is only when a peaceful protest or assembly turns into a riot or an unlawful assembly that the provisions of the bill would come into force.

When does a peaceful assembly become a riot or an unlawful assembly? The Criminal Code tells us when. It tells us that an unlawful assembly has occurred when:

--three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they

(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or

(b) will,by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

When do we know that police are dealing with a riot situation? Again, the Criminal Code, in section 64, tells us a riot is occurring when “an unlawful assembly has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously”.

We see in law that an unlawful assembly evolves into a riot when there is tumultuous conduct by participants. Typically this involves acts of violence or threatened violence, or destruction of property.

Both definitions provide us with clear indicators of when a peaceful assembly has ceased to be such and when police are now intervening in an illegal act. It is therefore no infringement on charter rights to peaceful assembly for police to intervene when such an assembly has degraded into either an unlawful assembly or a riot.

It is in those same situations when police are working to restore order that the provisions of Bill C-309 would make it necessary for any masks or disguises worn by participants to be taken off immediately.

Riots and unlawful assemblies already carry Criminal Code penalties. Bill C-309 would simply amend already existing sections of the code to make it an added offence to wear a mask or other disguise to conceal one's identity during these illegal acts.

Let us be clear. Anyone who is wearing a mask or a disguise to conceal his or her face in the midst of a riot is exhibiting aggravating behaviour. Law-abiding citizens who get caught up in a riot will naturally be seeking to clear the area on police orders. It is hard to imagine that others who ignore police instructions to depart the area and who, in addition, continue to linger in the vicinity while wearing a disguise are seized by any innocent motives or good intentions in those kind of circumstances.

This bill would not remove police discretion. Police who are trying to restore order and protect safety in a riot situation are not likely to be interested in pursuing anyone who is already obeying orders to leave the area. In fact, someone fleeing the scene of a riot on police orders may in a real sense be seen as no longer participating in a riot as defined by the code.

It is not the people leaving the scene of trouble who have the police's attention. It is the loitering, masked troublemakers who concern the police. Someone with his or her shirt up to block out tear gas for example is not likely to concern riot control police if that individual is actively running away from the scene. However, individuals who come prepared with gas masks or bandanas and are wearing them in the trouble spot in defiance of police directions to move on is another story.

There is evidence that at these riots many of the people wearing masks and facial coverings were part of organized groups with premeditated intent on confronting the police and causing mayhem. In addition to targeting the criminals of opportunity that we see at riots, this law also targets anarchists, those individuals who come to protest with the premeditated intent to use the assembly as a cover for their criminal behaviour.

Anarchist groups are increasingly employing the tactic of concealing their identity by wearing disguises, masks, or other facial coverings for the purpose of committing unlawful acts in a riot situation. Police have seen it time and again, individuals with their faces concealed mixing into a group and then instigating riotous behaviour, such as throwing objects at police, tossing marbles under the legs of police horses to trip them up, or covering up their faces before smashing windows, setting fires, stealing, assaulting people or flipping over vehicles. These individuals then remove their facial coverings and slip away in the confusion, some never to be apprehended. It is vexing for police and dangerous for the public to see such individuals escape the consequences of their actions.

I would argue that their clean getaways in fact embolden them to redouble their efforts and engage in criminality again, but Bill C-309 presents a new tool for police to deal with them. These people would now risk arrest for wearing their masks in a riot. Police would no longer have to wait for them to start assaulting people and destroying property before they could move against them.

Police know they need this ability to act pre-emptively against disguised individuals in riot situations. Police chiefs in a number of Canada's major cities, including Calgary, Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria, have all told me they support my bill.

Vancouver Chief Constable Jim Chu had this specifically to say about my bill:

The Vancouver Police Department is pleased to support this bill. When we see protestors in a crowd donning masks and hoods we know there is a very good chance that violence will soon follow.

In a resolution that he drafted this year for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Victoria Chief Constable Jamie Graham urged the government to take aim at this particular problem. His resolution had this to say about masked individuals: “Wearing facial covering allows an offender to blend in and mix with a larger lawful group of peaceful individuals without being identified. There an offender may commit unlawful acts under disguise then remove their masks or facial coverings and blend in with peaceful protestors.” It goes on to say: “Wearing a disguise, masks or other facial coverings allows a person to conceal their identity whose intent it is to commit an unlawful act prior to, during or immediately after a lawful assembly or protest.”

Police know through hard experience that it is often the organized ring leaders or instigators of such trouble who come prepared with materials to conceal their identities, or it is people who decide in the thick of things to assault others or destroy property who will attempt to conceal their identities, as we saw in Vancouver. Whoever they are, organized or not, no one in Canada should be able to hide in plain sight while committing crimes.

I have heard some suggest that if this bill passes, it may target individuals who wear facial coverings for religious or cultural reasons, but that view fails to take into account the exemption in this bill for lawful excuse. My bill states:

Every person who commits an offence...while wearing a mask or other disguise to conceal their identity without lawful excuse is guilty of an indictable offence--

What are examples of a lawful excuse? Someone who legitimately wears cultural or religious dress that obscures the face, or bandages for legitimate medical purposes, for example, might fall under the exemption. Someone who could demonstrate a lawful excuse that is legitimate and provable for wearing a face covering would not face the penalties of Bill C-309, although the person would still face the existing penalties for participating in a riot.

I will close by urging my colleagues in the House to support Bill C-309. I am convinced that no one in the chamber of any political persuasion wants to see repeats of the destruction and violence that took place in Vancouver and Toronto. This bill has the potential to deter and de-escalate such unfortunate events in the future to protect persons and property. I sincerely hope that all members will join me in moving the bill forward.