Bill C-394 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to recruit, solicit, encourage, coerce or invite a person to join a criminal organization. It establishes a penalty for that offence and a more severe penalty for the recruitment of persons who are under 18 years of age. This enactment also makes a related amendment to the National Defence Act.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

The government is making a technical amendment resulting from the Parliament's recent enactment of private member's Bill C-394, which created a new offence of recruiting to join a criminal organization.

This amendment ensures that the justice system participants can apply for a publication ban in respect of the new recruitment offence in the same way that the justice system participants can in other organized crime prosecutions. This amendment ensures that consistency in the treatment of organized crime offences for the purpose of publication bans. A failure to make this amendment would result in an inconsistent approach to organized crime offences in the Criminal Code.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 19 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 20 agreed to)

(On clause 21)

[Christa Big Canoe, Legal Advocacy Director, Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto]

Good morning. Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto would like to thank the members of the committee for inviting us to make submissions regarding this bill.

ALST, the acronym we use, is a multi-service legal agency serving Toronto's aboriginal community. Our only clients are aboriginal clients, or families who have aboriginal interests. Our guiding principles include that aboriginal individuals require equitable treatment in the Canadian justice system, access to legal and related resources within the justice system, as well as understanding of the system and their options within those systems. Aboriginal Legal Services' Anishinaabemowin name is Gaa kina gwii waabamaa debwewin, which translates into “All those who seek the truth".

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted us intervener status in 15 cases in which systemic issues affecting aboriginal peoples were addressed. As it relates to this bill, Aboriginal Legal Services' most noteworthy intervention was in R. v. Bedford. I was the counsel for Aboriginal Legal.

Aboriginal Legal Services objects to the passing of this bill because of the acute aboriginal overrepresentation in the criminal justice and penal systems, and the overall impact this bill will have on a number of aboriginal sex workers, their families, and communities.

We agree with a number of positions taken by POWER and Pivot in their written submissions, and the Lowman submission, “Tripping Point”. Because we do agree on some of those points and because I have limited time, I will only focus on two areas of concern today. We do not believe that Bill C-36 is consistent with the Gladue principles, nor is it charter compliant and consistent with precedent.

There seems to be a suggestion that two completely different and incompatible views have been presented to this committee: one from current or former sex workers, saying that the work is fine, empowering, and a completely autonomous choice; and the second view saying that sex workers are vulnerable, poor, addicted, and just surviving. From our perspective as front-line workers, not only in the Canadian justice system but in providing services—aboriginal community, justice-driven services—we say that these can both be true.

They can both be true because different people have different experiences. As my colleague and co-counsel on the Bedford intervention, Ms. Emily Hill, has pointed out to me, this committee should mostly be worried about the impact of the law on the second group, which everyone seems to agree includes an overrepresentation or disproportionate number of aboriginal people.

Another important point that Aboriginal Legal would like to make is that the government can do everything it's planning to do to support exiting for those who choose to, without also criminalizing sex workers. Neither of these groups of sex workers should be criminalized or put in harm's way because the law fails to account for their lives, liberty, or security of the person.

Our main concern that we believe the passing of the bill will raise can be talked about in two parts. The first part focuses on overrepresentation and Gladue principles, and the second part focuses on sex workers' rights to ensure safety.

Before we begin our discussions on these two points, we submit that laws and policy are not benign. We've heard in the media and through some of the witnesses here that it's not the law that rapes or hurts individuals. But we have to recognize that law and policy are not benign. Historically, laws in Canada have been used as tools of oppression that have attempted to assimilate aboriginal people. The state's legal and policy attempts at eliminating aboriginal people are significant. The treatment of aboriginal people in law and policy has arguably led to poor social determinants of health and hosts of issues that aboriginal people experience.

This was cited in “Forsaken”, the report by the Oppal commission:

The long-term impact of these colonialist policies continues to be keenly seen and felt by the over-representation of Aboriginal peoples in nearly every measured indicator of social and physical suffering in Canada.

Law is not benign; law is purposeful, and law impacts us both beneficially and negatively.

Looking at the first part, when I was talking about aboriginal overrepresentation, this bill as it currently exists will criminalize sex workers through the communication provision. There is an overrepresentation of aboriginal sex workers—which all the witnesses seem to agree on—engaged in street-level and survival sex work. The acute overrepresentation of aboriginal women in the penal system, and the harm that incarceration or institutionalization causes aboriginal women, also applies to their families and communities. What we know of specific statistics is that three out of five federally sentenced women are aboriginal women.

What we also know is that a lot of those aboriginal women start off with minor records and administrative breaches that accumulate over time and see them coming back into the system, so that when they are charged with something they get longer sentences. This is known. It's well-documented. It's in a number of reports on aboriginal men and women.

One thing that we're excluding here, because the preamble and a lot of the submissions are focusing only on women, is that we also know there's a disproportionate number of aboriginal men and transgendered individuals as sex workers. It's important to understand that aboriginal men and women are affected when they're over-incarcerated. They serve longer custodial sentences, usually to warrant expiry; that means to the end of their sentences. They experience higher levels of discrimination while they're in custody and they're more likely to receive high-security assessment by virtue of being aboriginal.

These same factors are the factors that see enforcement and police over-policing certain parts of town that have aboriginal people. These are the same factors that relate to the discrimination that we saw in the Oppal report and in other reports such as the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry in Manitoba.

The Correctional Service of Canada is not meeting legislative goals. The disproportionate numbers of street-based sex workers, including those engaging in survival sex, are aboriginal and will be affected if criminal charges occur. The survival sex workers are the most vulnerable and the most marginalized of all prostitutes, and aboriginal survival sex workers experience higher levels of violence both in terms of incidence and severity.

In the past, we've presented submissions before the Senate on various bills that have recently come in. The omnibus bill, C-10, and more recently, Bill C-394. Essentially, our largest concern is that passing this act will result in the retreat, or undermining, of the principles as set out in section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which the Gladue principles derive from. One of the biggest things that we're concerned about is the increased reliance on minimum sentences. This means there's less opportunity for appropriate and fit sentences, and this prevents judges from considering them as sentencing options.

For those who are incarcerated in the penitentiary system, which is three out of five aboriginal women who are federally sentenced.... Let me restate that. Three out of five federally sentenced women are aboriginal. For those who are incarcerated in the penitentiary system, realistically, they come out worse than they went in. We know this. They come out maybe no better, but often worse, with gang affiliations and substance issues and abuses they didn't have, and then they're released into the community without proper programming. The Supreme Court of Canada, in Gladue, stated that:

It is clear that sentencing innovation by itself cannot remove the causes of aboriginal offending and the greater problem of aboriginal alienation from the criminal justice system.

On Monday, Minister MacKay responded to one of the member's questions in that regard. He said that the law was consistent with Gladue, or that all laws have to be consistent. We respectfully disagree. The law, or the bill, hasn't taken into account the acute impact it will have on overrepresentation of aboriginal people if the communication clause that will criminalize sex workers is left in.

Based on what we know, incarceration in incremental amounts does not deter aboriginal offenders. That includes people who sell sex. The law, as it exists, and the law, as it exists pre-Bedford, doesn't deter the actual sale of sex. Arguably, what will happen is that criminalizing one element of it will do what happened in Vancouver, or the Downtown Eastside, where we saw aboriginal women largely, but a lot of sex workers, pushed into the darkened corner. These are the types of submissions that POWER and Pivot made in their written submissions, which we agree with.

In Bedford, our intervention focused on the constitutionality of section 213 of the Criminal Code. It was our position that the communicating provision violated both section 2 and section 7 of the charter and that such violations were not saved by section 1 of the charter. We also had the position that the state had a much larger role in depriving street-level sex workers' rights to life, liberty, and security of the person and that the limited choices available to survival sex workers were constrained as a result of government action, the law, and the law not being benign.

One thing that we learned in Bedford, and we've heard talked about, is gross disproportionality and it's the only thing I'm going to focus on due to my limited time. Bedford spoke to the gross disproportionality between the infringement of the law and the objects of the legislation.

The object has been recognized to protect the neighbourhoods that experience harms associated with street-based sex work. That's what was determined in Bedford. The court said that the court must balance the harms that those neighbourhoods face with harms that street-level sex workers face.

We, at the time, submitted that the inconvenience and discomfort do not reach the same harm level as that experienced by sex workers who experience violence, sexual violence, and death. Quite frankly, we don't see a difference between what the bill is proposing and the law that was struck down as being grossly disproportionate.

Simple wordmilling by saying that it's about safety and not about nuisance is not enough. It's not the true measure a court will have to balance in determining constitutionality of charter rights, and it will always have to balance the safety of the person at risk.

I'll close with what Chief Justice McLachlin said at paragraph 121 of Bedford, which is:

Gross disproportionality under s. 7 of the Charter does not consider the beneficial effects of the law for society. It balances the negative effect on the individual against the purpose of the law, not against societal benefit that might flow from the law.

It is our opinion that the scope has not narrowed so much. This committee should ask themselves whether the legislative object has really substantially changed, or has there been some wordmilling.

Criminal Organization Recruitment Legislation

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today with great pride to announce that my bill, Bill C-394, which will help protect our youth being targeted by gangs, received royal assent yesterday and has now become law.

This new law allows the law enforcement officials to combat the rapid growth of street gangs across our country. Criminals who seek to recruit innocent Canadians into gangs will now face jail time of up to five years.

I am overwhelmed by the support this bill has received from Canadians across our great nation.

We all know it is not very often we see a private member's bill pass and become law. Since 1910, only approximately 250 private members' bills have been passed, and I am truly honoured that my bill has received such wonderful support.

As a proud father of three children, I am overwhelmed by the passage of this legislation, and to know that this bill will protect our children and punish those who seek to harm them by bringing them into a life of crime.

Criminal Organization Recruitment

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today with great pride to announce that my bill, Bill C-394, which would protect our youth being targeted by gangs, has passed its final reading in the Senate and will receive royal assent tomorrow.

This legislation would allow law enforcement officials to combat the rapid growth of street gangs across our country.

The bill would also make it a criminal offence for the recruitment or solicitation of individuals into criminal organizations.

The bill would introduce jail time of up to five years and a mandatory minimum jail time of up to six months for those who recruit youth under the age of 18; youth, our most innocent and vulnerable citizens, who are being coerced and at times forced to embark on a life that no Canadian should ever experience.

As a proud father of three children, I am overwhelmed by the passage of this legislation and knowing that the bill would protect our children and punish those who seek to harm our children by bringing them into a life of crime.

Private Members' Business

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would like to make a statement concerning private members' business.

As hon. members know, our Standing Orders provide for the continuance of private members’ business from session to session within a Parliament.

In practical terms, this means that notwithstanding prorogation, the list for the consideration of private members' business established at the beginning of the 41st Parliament shall continue for the duration of this Parliament.

As such, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that were listed on the Order Paper at the conclusion of the previous session are automatically reinstated to the Order Paper and shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.

All items will keep the same number as in the first session of the 41st Parliament. More specifically, all bills and motions standing on the list of items outside the order of precedence shall continue to stand. Bills that had met the notice requirement and were printed in the Order Paper but had not yet been introduced will be republished on the Order Paper under the heading “Introduction of Private Members' Bills”. Bills that had not yet been published on the order paper need to be recertified by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and be resubmitted for publication on the notice paper.

Of course all items in the order of precedence remain on the order of precedence or, as the case may be, are referred to the appropriate committee or sent to the Senate.

Specifically, at prorogation there were three private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to committee.

Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, Bill C-458, an act respecting a national charities week and to amend the Income Tax Act (charitable and other gifts) is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Bill C-478, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Bill C-489, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders) is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, committees will be required to report on each of these reinstated private members’ bills within 60 sitting days of this statement.

In addition, prior to prorogation, nine private members' bills originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bills are deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House: Bill C-217, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief relating to war memorials); Bill C-266, an act to establish Pope John Paul II day; Bill C-279, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity); Bill C-290, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sports betting); Bill C-314, an act respecting the awareness of screening among women with dense breast tissue; Bill C-350, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accountability of offenders); Bill C-377, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations); Bill C-394, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment); and Bill C-444, an act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer).

Accordingly, a message will be sent to the Senate to inform it that this House has adopted these nine bills.

Consideration of private members’ business will start on Thursday, October 17, 2013.

As members may be aware, among the items in the order of precedence or deemed referred to committee, there are four bills standing in the name of members recently appointed as parliamentary secretaries who, by virtue of their office, are not eligible to propose items during the consideration of private members' business.

Bill C-511, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act (period of residence) and Bill C-517, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons) were awaiting debate at second reading in the order of precedence at the time of prorogation.

Bill C-458, An Act respecting a National Charities Week and to amend the Income Tax Act (charitable and other gifts), and Bill C-478, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), were in committee at the time of prorogation and, as stated earlier, have been returned there.

This is in keeping with the principle expressed at pages 550-551 and 1125 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which provides that bills remain on the order of precedence since they are in the possession of the House and only the House can take further decision on them.

These items are therefore without eligible sponsors but remain in the possession of the House or its committees. If no action is taken, at the appropriate time these items will eventually be dropped from the Order Paper, pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(c).

Hon. members will find at their desks a detailed explanatory note about private members’ business. I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in this session. The table officers are available to answer any questions members may have.

I thank all members for their attention.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-394, under private members' business.

The House resumed from April 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment), be read the third time and passed.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here. I believe this has been a tremendous session, and I know this committee has learned a lot.

Our committee recently studied Bill C-394, criminal organization recruitment. It was introduced by Parm Gill, one of our colleagues. The bill proposes to create a new indictable offence that would prohibit the recruitment, solicitation, encouragement, or initiation of another person to join a criminal organization. We're talking about street gangs, for the most part.

The offence would be punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum penalty of imprisonment for six months if the individual who is recruited is under the age of 18.

In my opinion, from my experience as an educator, a link can be made between harmful actions of street gangs and the trafficking of women. Unfortunately, street gangs are more and more using the trafficking of women to help their repulsive trade prosper.

Would you agree with that statement? Are you seeing a lot of action by street gangs that are recruiting women into the sex trade?

Justice

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to keeping our streets and communities safe. This is why I have introduced Bill C-394. My legislation targets those who attempt to recruit youth into gangs. Parents want gangs off our streets and out of their neighbourhoods. This legislation would help to achieve precisely that.

With the final vote in the House of Commons scheduled for tonight, could the Minister of Justice please inform the House about the government's position on this important piece of legislation?

Criminal Code

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my hon. colleagues for taking the time to participate in the debate on this important piece of legislation. Bill C-394 is legislation that Canada needs in order to make our streets and communities safer for everyone to enjoy.

This is not about politics or partisanship. It is my belief and hope that when it comes to protecting our youth and our most vulnerable citizens, we are all on the same side. Our youth are our future and it is our responsibility to provide an environment in which they can reach their greatest potential.

The realities of a gang lifestyle are heartbreaking. Such things as death, guns, drugs, violence, substance abuse, criminal activity and prostitution are all too common in this environment. This is a place that no person should ever find themselves, yet far too many still do. It is our responsibility not only as elected representatives but as citizens of this country to work together in an effort to make our future safe for all.

This proposed legislation is an important tool that our criminal justice system needs in order to address this growing concern. The act of gang recruitment affects those directly involved. It is a danger to families, communities and the safety that every Canadian holds dear. Young Canadians, regardless of where they grow up, should be able to grow and explore their potential in a safe environment.

It is an unfortunate and disheartening reality that youth today are targeted by active and violent gangs. The means by which these gangs recruit our youth are both inhumane and life-altering. This reality necessitates the quick passage of Bill C-394 because one person recruited into a gang is one person too many. It is time to take action so that families do not have to live in fear and communities across this country can enjoy the safety and security that we all deserve.

As this bill is at third reading and will soon be voted on, I would like to take a moment to thank everyone who has been involved in the development and progression of this bill.

I would like to sincerely thank my very hard-working staff, both in Brampton and in Ottawa, for their support; my colleagues for supporting this bill from the beginning; and community stakeholders across this great nation who met with me, including front-line police officers and justice officials who supported this bill from the beginning and even took the time to testify before the justice committee.

I would like to thank my constituents, the wonderful citizens of Brampton—Springdale, for the honour of allowing me to represent them here in this House and for providing me with incredible feedback and support toward this bill.

Finally, I would like to thank the countless number of youth I had the opportunity to meet and who inspired me to create this piece of legislation so that their future and the future of coming generations could be protected.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-394, criminal organization recruitment, which aims to address the important issue of gang recruitment. Combatting organized crime has been a long-standing commitment of this government, and I would like to thank the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale for introducing Bill C-394, a bill that would very much continue to build on these efforts.

The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has reported this bill back to the House with a minor amendment, specifically relating to consistency between the English and French versions of the Criminal Code, and one additional amendment. Before I go on to address these amendments in more detail, allow me to say that this bill makes a strong statement against the serious problem of organized crime groups in this country.

Bill C-394 aims to ensure that the Criminal Code explicitly prohibits recruiting another person into a criminal organization. It does so by proposing a new indictable offence: actively recruiting, soliciting, encouraging or inviting another person to join a criminal organization for the purpose of enhancing the ability of that criminal organization to facilitate or commit indictable offences. The person doing the recruiting would not need to be a member of the criminal organization to which the individual is being recruited. This offence would be punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum penalty of imprisonment for six months if the individual recruited is under the age of 18.

The committee heard from many witnesses on this issue, and many of them emphasized just how important Bill C-394 would be in the effort to prevent youth from joining criminal organizations in the first place. Organized crime groups often target young people to conduct many of their activities, in part because they know that if a young person is caught, he or she will be treated more leniently by the justice system. For example, we heard testimony about criminal organizations that use 11-year-old children to run drugs. Criminal organizations also target young people who are vulnerable and do not have positive influences in their lives. These young people are often seduced by the promise of a lifestyle of power and money. However, we know that this most often does not turn out to be true and that, in fact, gang life is a dangerous life to choose.

When the Attorney General of Manitoba, Andrew Swan, testified before the committee, he emphasized this:

Gang life closes out family, friends, school, and community. Many young people who get brought into gangs, who are coerced to join gangs, find that there is no financial benefit. There's a cutting off of all the things that the youth have been involved with, and there is no easy way out.

Being involved in a gang increases the risk of violence to an individual and even the risk of death.

The vulnerability of youth in these situations was the primary motivation behind the proposed imposition of a mandatory minimum penalty if the individual recruited is under the age of 18. Attorney General Swan elegantly described this element of the proposed offence as a guaranteed consequence. This element would send a strong message to gangs that Canada's young people are a priority and that we will protect them.

I will be the first to admit that Bill C-394 represents only one of many available responses to a problem that has been recognized by many to require a multi-faceted approach. It is a Criminal Code approach. I do not wish to suggest for one second that this bill alone would prevent all recruitment into a criminal gang. Do I think it is an important response? Yes, I do. Do I think it is a meaningful response? Of course it is. I also recognize that combatting organized crime requires a broad response.

Prevention efforts must also be put in place to provide meaningful alternatives and positive role models so that people who may be thinking about joining a gang have an opportunity to choose otherwise. The government has made significant investments over the past number of years to support programs and youth gang prevention activities. The proposed offence of recruitment by criminal organizations would provide yet another tool for police as they continue to address the growing problem of criminal gangs.

The effort to recruit people into a criminal organization is more than just a problem for the people being recruited. It also represents a significant problem from the perspective of public safety. When people are successfully recruited into a criminal organization to facilitate the organization's ability to commit crime, it enhances the threat posed by these groups in general.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-394 has been reported to the House with a few minor technical amendments, which I support. I am also very pleased to report that there was unanimous support for this bill by all our colleagues at committee.

I would like to now briefly comment on an amendment made by the committee.

Bill C-394 was amended to include coercion in the list of prohibitive behaviour. That particular amendment would have the effect of prohibiting the recruitment, solicitation, encouragement, invitation and coercion of someone to join a criminal organization.

Coercion is a term that is generally used in criminal law to refer to conduct that is for the purpose of compelling someone to do or to refrain from doing something. Its inclusion in the bill's proposed new offences therefore makes sense. It is another way in which people can be, and are being, brought into criminal organizations, which in turn increases the capacity of criminal organizations to commit crime.

Bill C-394 is an important piece of legislation, and I want to thank the committee for its work on this bill.

In closing, I would like to again thank the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale for introducing this extremely important bill. The protection of youth is a priority for this government and it should be a priority for all members of this House.

Furthermore, the threat of organized crime continues to be a major concern for Canadians. The thought that youth are being brought in and recruited by such organizations is a very real and troubling issue. It is for this reason that I hope all members will stand in this House and support Bill C-394.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate on Bill C-394 and the issue of gang recruitment. I had the privilege of sitting in on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights while it considered this legislation, and I will expand on some of the issues discussed in those meetings.

I speak, I believe, for all members of the Liberal Party when I say that I want to deter youths from joining gangs. Indeed, if this legislation served any preventive end, we would gladly endorse it. However, not only does Bill C-394 fail to address the fundamental reasons that youths join gangs—the root causes, if I dare say that—but it also would employ a mandatory minimum penalty, which the Liberal Party opposes in principle.

I raise the root causes of youth gang involvement as an issue, because the government acknowledges the problems but it fails to provide solutions either in Bill C-394 or elsewhere. For example, the website of the Department of Public Safety lists risk factors relative to youth gang involvement and includes the following as major risks: limited attachment to the community, over-reliance on anti-social peers, poor parental supervision, alcohol and drug abuse, poor educational or employment potential and a need for recognition and belonging. Yet Bill C-394 does not address any of these. In fact, the government is missing in action on things like youth unemployment and access to education, things it could take proactive measures to correct.

With regard to violence among aboriginals, public safety's website explains:

The increase in gang violence and crime in some Aboriginal communities has been attributed in part to an increasing youth population, inadequate housing, drug and alcohol abuse, a high unemployment rate, lack of education, poverty, poor parenting skills, the loss of culture, language and identity and a sense of exclusion.

As Idle No More and similar movements demonstrate, the government is out of touch with the needs of aboriginal communities. If it took those needs seriously, we could begin the process of reconciliation. We could address the social problems plaguing first nations. We could give aboriginal youth access to education and opportunity. Instead, by ignoring these problems, we further the cycle of despair that makes gang life attractive to youth.

It is interesting to have this discussion in light of the Conservatives' attack ad on the member for Papineau. They criticize him for being a camp counsellor, a rafting instructor and a drama teacher. If we want kids to feel included in their communities, to have a sense of belonging and purpose, we ought to have more camp counsellors, more rafting instructors, more teachers seeking to make a difference in the life of a child, not attacking these sorts of things as useless pursuits unbecoming of a leader. However, the government buries its head in the sand and refuses to acknowledge that preventing crime involves addressing tough issues beyond the Criminal Code.

I can assure the House that youths are not joining gangs because they believe their activities are lawful, nor do gangs recruit because they believe it is legal to do so. This is the problem with the Conservative approach to crime. Everything is a matter for the criminal law, and every incident provides a pretext to legislate.

As was said by the member for Toronto Centre, “when the only tool we have in our toolbox is a sledgehammer, everything starts to look like a rock”. For Conservatives, criminal law is all about punishment. By adding new offences and penalties and, in some cases, duplicating existing offences and penalties, the Conservatives attempt to regulate on the back end, after the crimes have been committed. This ignores the fact that there are other elements to criminal justice such as prevention, rehabilitation of the offender and reintegration into society, let alone addressing the underlying causes of crime.

As I mentioned, I may be accused of perhaps committing sociology on this. Let there be no mistake. Bill C-394 deals with gang recruitment only on the back end once it has occurred. I submit that by then, it is way too late.

As I have indicated, this issue is already addressed by the Criminal Code. Former justice minister Anne McLellan said in this place, upon the introduction of what is currently in the Criminal Code that we are seeking to amend today, the following:

We know that successful recruitment enhances the threat posed to society by criminal organizations. It allows them to grow and to more effectively achieve their harmful criminal objectives. Those who act as recruiters for criminal organizations contribute to these ends both when they recruit for specific crimes and when they recruit simply to expand the organization's human capital.

In other words, we knew when introducing what was already in the code that recruitment was an issue, is an issue, and we put in place offence language that captured it. Thus, while the regime in the code at present may not use the word “recruitment”, the intention is clear in the record and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that prosecutions for recruitment are not happening because of some legislative loophole.

Indeed, as it is proposed, the bill will actually add to the problem by putting in a mandatory minimum penalty. International studies corroborate what even Justice Canada has found, that mandatory minimums do not deter crime. Among other things, mandatory minimums remove prosecutorial and judicial discretion. They lead to prison overcrowding. They lead to more crimes in prison and more crimes outside of prison. They contribute to a clogging of the courts, resulting in accused persons being set free. They are, as I indicated in my question to the member earlier, constitutionally suspect. Mandatory minimums have prejudicial consequences, particularly on aboriginal peoples and minority communities.

I know colleagues in the NDP have argued that the mandatory minimum in this bill is light and, therefore, acceptable, in their view. We take a different approach, which is that there is no need for adding something that could lead, in the right fact situation, to this legislation being overturned. This just is not smart legislating.

However, if I were to address the Conservatives' inability to legislate intelligently, I would certainly run out of time. In fact, we might be here all night. Instead, I will focus on one shortcoming relevant here, which is the failure to vet bills for constitutionality. Much has been made of that in the House and, in particular, by my colleague, the member for Mount Royal, of the obligation of the Minister of Justice, under the Department of Justice Act, to review government legislation for compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The minister, time and time again, has said that his bills are constitutional, yet time and time again the provisions are struck down and the government is called to account for its failure to comply with the supreme law of the land. Not only does legislating in such a reckless way risk the statute being struck, it also clogs up the courts with challenges that could have been avoided. It also costs the taxpayers, who bear the burden of defending the government. For a government that claims accountability, why is it not accountable to the charter and its statutory obligations? For a government that prides itself on fiscal restraint, why is it wasting taxpayer money?

One may wonder why I am raising this issue when the obligation for a charter check is only on government bills, not on private members' bills like Bill C-394. The answer is that the government has been increasingly using private members' bills to legislate through the back door. If this bill was so important, why was it not included in the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10? Why has the minister not introduced it on his own accord? Surely, if it were so necessary, the minister could have made this change to a government bill and it would have passed through the House much faster. Indeed, by using the private member bill route, the government minimizes House debate and circumvents the required charter review.

We must address the cycle of poverty and homelessness that affects too many children in the country. Where is the government on that? We must say to ourselves that if children are to be the priority, maybe we need more camp councillors, rafting instructors and drama teachers. What they do not need is a government that says it cares, throws a band-aid on the problem that will not hold and then pats itself on the back for having done anything at all. Bill C-394 would be just that, and that is why the Liberal Party will vote no on this bill.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as Bill C-394, presented by my colleague the member for Brampton—Springdale, reaches third reading.

Bill C-394 amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence in relation to organized crime, namely recruiting a person to join a criminal organization. The NDP supports this bill as part of a response to the problem of gang recruitment, particularly of young people.

Upon reading the text, we find that the bill was amended by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. One amendment adds the concept of coercion to the new offence. The others are designed to ensure consistency between the English and French versions, and in the terminology used in the Criminal Code. The bill was examined for three hours by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

As a member of the committee, I had an opportunity to hear valuable and thought-provoking testimony, and to question witnesses. I also had an opportunity to take part in interesting exchanges with my colleagues on the committee. The phenomenon of recruitment, mainly of young people, by gangs presents a real problem, which calls for a balanced public safety approach, that is an approach combining prevention and enforcement.

In the NDP, we believe that this bill contains part of the answer to the problem, but in committee we pointed out that the creation of a new offence amending the Criminal Code with the addition of section 467.111 is the outcome of a private member’s bill, not a government bill. The government should make changes to its policy to deal with street gangs. Let me pursue this point further.

The street gang phenomenon is so important in our country that the government should adopt a strategy to deal with these criminal organizations. The government should find effective solutions for the problem of recruitment by criminal organizations.

Representatives of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada came to testify before the committee. This Canada-wide organization provides guidance and assistance to young Canadians who are marginalized or in difficulty, work that is essential to social cohesion in our country.

I would like to quote Marlene Deboisbriand, vice-president of that organization, regarding the importance of these clubs in Canada:

Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada is a leading provider of quality programs that support the healthy development of children and youth. Our association of over 100 clubs reaches over 200,000 children, youth, and their families across the country. We are in 500 community locations from coast to coast to coast.

These representatives emphasized the need for funding for prevention programs:

We are not opposed to Bill C-394. Our concerns are mostly related to the need for enhanced prevention efforts....and rehabilitative programs for youth who want to rebuild their lives outside gangs.

The testimony given by Rachel Gouin of Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada was very compelling. She addressed three important points.

First of all, is it very important that public authorities take a comprehensive approach to the complex phenomenon of the recruitment of young people into gangs. Targeted punitive measures like this one, combined with adequate police action to catch people who are recruiting, would be best. However, these measures must be accompanied by programs and social services geared towards housing assistance, mental health support and employment assistance.

Secondly, recruiters are sometimes children or teenagers themselves. As Ms. Gouin said in her testimony, the scope of this bill does not apply to them. Children and youth have their own criminal justice system, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The third point, which is related to the first, is the importance of continuity of funding for prevention programs that target both those likely to do the recruiting and those likely to be recruited.

The Youth Justice Services Funding Program helps the provinces establish rehabilitation services for these people. It is regrettable that budget cuts have affected this program.

The presentation by Manitoba's attorney general was also very important. The NDP paid close attention to what he said. Our only amendment to the bill, presented in committee, came out of this evidence. The attorney general said:

...we believe Bill C-394 could be improved by being applied to anyone recruiting in places where youth are expected to gather, the very places I think all of us want to keep safe, such as schools and schoolyards, community centres, friendship centres, and parks—places where we want it to be safe for young people to go.

The NDP presented an amendment concerning sentencing. It would ensure that the court take into consideration elements of proof establishing the recruitment of someone under 18 into a gang, near a school or community centre, for example, as aggravating factors. Our excellent amendment was hotly debated and the Conservatives unfortunately decided to reject it.

The NDP has always been proactive when it comes to public safety. On the one hand, we want more money for crime prevention programs. On the other, we want police forces to have the resources needed to adequately protect communities across Canada. It is therefore important to continue to collaborate with the provinces, the territories and first nations.

In closing, this bill is a solution to the problem of recruitment by gangs, but it is not the only one.

We support this bill. However, we are asking the government to do more. An approach that strikes a balance between repression and prevention must always prevail when it comes to public safety.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I was putting together the bill, I had an opportunity to travel right across the country and discuss it with a number of different stakeholders and communities, including youth. I came across far too many incidents like the one I shared in my remarks about gang members in Winnipeg targeting younger and younger people with some of their tactics. This is very heartbreaking, the destroying of our future, because especially at a young age, as young as eight years of age, these young people have no idea what they are getting into. They are being enticed. Their lives are being ruined. These criminal gangs are terrorizing our communities and our streets. Bill C-394 would help protect us.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has a strong record. It has actually invested more money in protecting Canadians and in our justice system than any previous government in history.

This is a very important issue. Our government has introduced a number of initiatives to protect Canadians and to make our streets safer. Bill C-394 is another tool in the toolbox to help our justice officials and our front-line police officers protect Canadians, especially our youth, the young generation, who are the future of our country.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

moved that Bill C-394, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment), be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to have this opportunity at third reading to share with the House the important measures introduced in Bill C-394, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment).

The focal point of my bill, Bill C-394, is to protect Canadians, especially, our youth, by making the act of criminal organization recruitment, in other words, gang recruitment, a criminal offence under Canadian law.

All of us can agree that our youth are our future. This is a statement that holds no partisan or political undertone. Each one of us in this House, and every Canadian, would agree that today's youth will one day define the course of this country, and that course will be determined by the types of opportunities our youth are provided.

Young Canadians today have a sense of vulnerability about them. There are challenges that all youth face. My three young children constantly remind me of how important it is as a parent to provide for their safety and to protect them from any real or potential danger.

Every single parent in the world wants the best for his or her children. All parents want to provide their children with every opportunity to succeed. To do this, we must strive to create a safe environment in which our children are free to grow and explore their potential. Unfortunately, not every young person gets to experience the life that he or she deserves. Sometimes the pressures to fit in or to join a certain group are just too overwhelming, leaving youth helpless to those who might exploit their desire to belong.

In a 2008 publication, the RCMP found that street gangs in Canada are increasingly aggressive with their recruitment tactics. In a disturbing trend, these criminal organizations are targeting our youth under the age of 12 and as young as eight.

These ruthless gangs pursue our youth for several reasons. They know that those falling within this range cannot be formally charged with a criminal offence. They also know that our youth can be easily pressured to participate in a variety of criminal activities. Innocent Canadians are being manipulated and, at times, forced to embark on a life that no Canadian should ever experience. Gangs exploit our children by forcing them to participate in criminal activities, such as drug dealing, robbery, theft and prostitution.

When I had the opportunity to speak with current and ex-gang members who led recruitment initiatives in Regina, Saskatchewan, they told me of a world that knew no boundaries. For instance, gang members will use drug addiction to manipulate potential recruits to take part in criminal activities that support these gangs. This means that children who should have been playing soccer in a schoolyard are carrying weapons, drugs and money for gangs. In the eyes of the gangs, these youth are dispensable and easily controlled. It is worrisome and heartbreaking that Canada's most wanted criminal organizations actively recruit our youth and teenagers.

How can we, as a nation, sit by and watch while this happens?

I remember vividly what the director of the Regina Anti-Gang Services told me, as we sat side by side in a small room among hardened gang members seeking to exit that lifestyle. She told me that once recruited, these innocent children and teenagers were lost to the streets of the city forever. Promising young lives would vanish into the criminal culture forever.

What makes this lifestyle so deadly is that leaving a gang is next to impossible. As I mentioned earlier, I had the chance to speak with several former and current gang members. I sat beside a young man, a mere 19 years old, who had been a gang member for more than seven years. When I looked at him, I saw a kid.

However, as we got deeper into a discussion about his past, there was nothing in his life that resembled that of a youth.

He was recruited into a gang at a very young age. Instead of school, friends, family and sports, he was robbing drug dealers, attacking rival gang members and selling drugs on the street. This was a kid who excelled in a criminal organization because that was the only life he knew. I cannot help but picture his work ethic, allowing him to lead an extraordinarily successful law-abiding life. Now he is battling a drug addiction and because he is seeking to exit the gang, he constantly looks over his shoulder fearing for his life. He told me that no matter what he did, he was never really out of the gang. People that he recruited into the gang have experienced the same pain as him. He looked me in the eyes and asked “By recruiting others into the gang, how many lives did I ruin? How many families did I hurt? How many people have experienced pain at my hands?”

As a member of Parliament, I know there is more we can do.

In 2006, CSIS estimated the number of street gang members under the age of 30 was approximately 11,000. The report cautioned that this number would continue to grow rapidly over the coming years.

In the region of Peel, which my family and I call home, the number of gangs has exploded in the past few years. In 2003, there were just 39. Today there are well over 110 street gangs within our neighbourhoods. This means more people live in fear, more young people are targeted and more violence is used.

Gang members in Canada have a blatant disregard for the safety and well-being of those around them. For instance, in some communities families are afraid to leave their homes or let their children out to play. Gangs also pose a significant risk for law enforcement officers.

The increase in gang recruitment has far-reaching and systemic effects on our country as a whole. Our safety, security and well-being are placed in jeopardy.

The purpose of Bill C-394 is two-fold.

First and foremost, we are seeking to further protect our youth and our communities by criminalizing the act of gang recruitment. Far too many communities in Canada are facing a gang problem. It is vitally important that we maintain the security and safety of our neighbourhoods, our streets and our families. By tackling gang recruitment, we can help reduce the number of innocent and vulnerable citizens who would otherwise be lost in this dead-end lifestyle forever. This is about protecting our children, our neighbourhoods and our future. Criminal organizations use fear, intimidation and violence to advance their objectives and grow within our communities. This behaviour cannot be tolerated any longer.

Second, Bill C-394 is designed to provide law enforcement officers with additional tools to address gang recruitment.

I had the opportunity to meet with numerous stakeholders across our great nation in order to discuss this issue. The valuable insights I gained were used in the development of this legislation. We spoke with numerous stakeholders and law enforcement agencies across the country, which praised the bill's direction, scope, focus and resourcefulness.

This legislation was recently studied by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. During its study, the committee heard witness testimony from a Winnipeg police officer who had spent over six and a half years working in his department's anti-gang unit. In his statement to the committee, this officer testified that gang recruitment was targeting younger and younger Canadian youth. He explained that in his city of Winnipeg, 10-year-olds were being actively recruited into gangs.

Fifteen-year-olds are on charge for murder who were driven to kill by older gang members who knew they would face much lesser penalties. He went on to testify that:

—tackling recruitment and making it illegal is very important, because often when these people are recruited at a young age, they don't understand the life they're getting into. They see it as having rock-star status in the media. Popular culture makes it look like it's something to do. It's not until they're in it and they've been in it for two, three, or four years at age 15 that they realize the road they're going down. There aren't riches, there isn't fame and fortune, and they cannot leave the gang.

Further to this witness testimony, the committee also heard from the minister of justice for Manitoba, the Hon. Andrew Swan. Also supportive of the bill, the minister stated:

This bill would provide guaranteed consequences, which...are needed in order to take on those who would recruit young people into gangs. It also increases the range of penalties that could be imposed by a court if somebody were found guilty of this provision.

We have a front line police officer and a justice official who both support the bill and believe it would benefit police and justice officials in helping to stop the recruitment of young individuals into gangs.

Youth gang membership has grown, and will continue to grow, in our country if we sit back and do nothing. Bill C-394 would allow our justice system to appropriately hold those who recruited individuals into criminal organizations accountable for their devastating actions. By doing so, we would be able to help take these dangerous criminals off our streets.

This not only maintains the safety and security of our communities, but it offers the opportunity to severely inhibit a criminal organization's growth.

When I spoke with the president and CEO of the Boys and Girls Club of Winnipeg, he told me a story that exemplified the need for this proposed legislation.

At one of its inner city club chapters, gang members will wait under the parking garage directly behind the building. Their sole purpose for being there is to engage those leaving the Boys and Girls Club in hopes of recruiting them into their gang, a targeted strategy that is not a coincidence. This example highlights the reality that our youth in the community currently face.

Education and prevention programs are important, but they are only a part of our response to this going problem. We need to provide our front line police officers and justice officials with the ability to respond through legal action.

Imagine for a moment if these children, youth and teenagers were empowered to report those trying to recruit them into gangs. Imagine if our community members knew that something could be done about gang recruiters who operated in their neighbourhood. It would empower communities to take action and fight back.

In conclusion, we have an opportunity, not just as members of Parliament but as Canadians, to come together and make a difference, which will protect our youth and our neighbourhoods.

I urge each and every one of my colleagues in the House to view the bill for what it is: an important new tool in our criminal justice system that would benefit families, communities and future generations.

It is time we take back our streets from criminal organizations that are increasingly tightening their grip on our freedoms, safety and security. It is time we take a stand so every child, teenager and adult can experience the life they deserve to live.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witness for being here today.

This committee in particular has done a lot of private members' business in the area of the Criminal Code, so I'm certainly getting a lot more familiar with the provisions of the Criminal Code, the different philosophies of either party, and individual members and their concerns.

I'm going to reference some of your comments that you made earlier today in your opening testimony.

Our committee recently studied Bill C-394, which is on criminal organization recruitment. That was introduced by our Conservative colleague Parm Gill. Mr. Gill's bill proposes to create a new indictable offence that would prohibit the recruitment, solicitation, encouragement, or initiation of another person to join a criminal organization. This offence would be punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum imprisonment of six months if the individual who is recruited is under the age of 18.

In your testimony you clearly linked human trafficking with criminal organizations, particularly organized crime. In my opinion, a link can be made between the harmful actions of street gangs and the trafficking of women. Unfortunately, street gangs are using the trafficking of women more and more in helping to advance their goals.

Could you please explain a bit more about the relationship between the trafficking of women and street gangs?

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Justice and Human Rights

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-394, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment).

The committee has studied the bill and has agreed to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Committee, just before we adjourn, a budget has been circulated for our discussion on Bill C-394.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Taylor, if we said, “shall consider as an aggravating circumstance, among other factors, any evidence establishing that the offence was committed against a person under the age of eighteen years near a school or a community centre”, it wouldn't be limited, but would still serve as an indication.

I would hope that those across the way agree that engaging in criminal organization recruitment near a school or community centre constitutes an aggravating circumstance. I gather that people don't want to limit it and give courts the impression that it wouldn't apply to a Boys and Girls Club, for example. I think people should avoid the temptation to reject the amendment simply because it comes from us. As I see it, the person who introduced the bill did so specifically to set out recruitment as an offence. We're adding a minimum sentence to send a pretty important message in cases where minors are being targeted.

But I think we also need to send a message—and one does not preclude the other—that this form of recruitment constitutes an aggravating factor. That is strictly in response to what the committee was told. Manitoba's justice minister, for one, supports Bill C-394, which was sponsored by a government member, and we respect his opinion. In his view, recruitment is a problem. And the police have said so as well.

Does the expression “among other factors” remove the limiting aspect? From your comments, my understanding is that it isn't inconsistent with what the Criminal Code already says. And, for our colleagues across the way, that's the only thing being considered. We still have time, since it's likely the only amendment left in our study of this bill, which is otherwise moving along swiftly.

In light of that, I don't think we can be opposed to the principle. It would address their concerns.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, as I told the parliamentary secretary a moment ago, I'm not in the habit of introducing amendments at the last minute, and I apologize. It's important to understand, however, the context in which we study certain bills here, in committee. In light of that, this shouldn't be that surprising. Much of the time, we are asked to submit any amendments we may have by such and such a date and time, even though we still have witnesses to hear from. It troubles me every time that happens.

I think it's important to make that point clear to the committee. It complicates things. Seriously, sometimes I have amendment ideas, but they aren't enough to mobilize a number of people to draw them up and so forth. They may be just ideas, and I may have more questions once I've heard the other witnesses.

Sometimes, we have to suffer through an amendment such as this one, a bit on the fly, as you will say. You all have the amendment in front of you. The amendment had actually been drafted initially. I held it back, however, for the simple reason that we had come to the conclusion that subparagraph 718.2(a)(ii.1) of the Criminal Code already provided for an additional penalty or an aggravating element when a crime was committed against a minor. So, then, we could assume it would involve the type of file we have before us, specifically Bill C-394.

That said, I think Minister Swan's comments were quite clear. His brief contains many other elements he would like to see implemented. We will study that carefully and, then, see whether the government decides to introduce other bills or whether other members decide to introduce private member's bills in response to some of his recommendations. Time will tell.

There is an amendment we can definitely make as we speak. We must send a clear message about the arena in which recruitment takes place. The minister put it quite well, for that matter. One of his recommendations was to make recruitment near a school or community centre an aggravating circumstance. He didn't propose making it a separate offence but, rather, an aggravating circumstance that the court would have to consider with respect to sentencing.

I think that fits very nicely into what our colleague Parm Gill was trying to achieve by introducing Bill C-394. It sends an additional message to the courts, which must examine the circumstances and establish the length of the sentence somewhere between six months and five years.

If the evidence shows that the person was indeed caught recruiting near a school or community centre, this sends a clear message that doing so is categorically unacceptable and represents the worst case scenario. As I see it, recruitment of any kind is despicable, but doing it in vulnerable areas where kids hang out, schools and community centres, is even worse.

So that's the gist of the amendment proposed. To my mind, it fits into Bill C-394 quite nicely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion of this amendment?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

LIB-2 is an amendment to clause 9 also, and I am ruling based on this:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

That's out of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 766.

In the opinion of the chair, the creation of an exemption for a certain class of persons, where one does not currently exist, is contrary to the principle of Bill C-394. The new provision should apply to all equally, and this is therefore inadmissible.

Are there any questions? Amendment LIB-2 is removed. Thank you very much.

Now we have amendment NDP-1. Are you moving that, Madame Boivin?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The proposal here, of course, is to remove the mandatory minimum penalty from Bill C-394, as the Liberal Party is opposed to mandatory minimum penalties. We trust our judges and we trust that judges will use their discretion.

I was quite interested to hear the preamble to a question from Mr. Albas earlier today that showed me some glimmer of hope that maybe judges are from time to time required to be trusted as well. I live in hope that we might have a convert to our philosophy on this.

We trust judges to provide sentences that are appropriate in the circumstances and to reflect the gravity of the offence, as well as the conduct of the offender. Mandatory minimum penalties may, in some instances, lead to charter rights infringement, and we have seen courts in Ontario and B.C. strike these types of provisions down in recent cases.

Lastly, all the available evidence, including that from our own Department of Justice, concludes that mandatory minimum penalities do not serve as a deterrent. You will recall that I asked a direct question of Mr. Gill, who couldn't point to a single piece of evidence contrary. Mandatory minimums cause more crime, both in prison and out of prison, contribute to prison overcrowding, which may itself lead to charter violations, all the while in no way contributing to the rehabilitation or reintegration of the offender into society, a reality ignored by a focus on incarceration alone.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Absolutely.

As you know, Bill C-394 proposes to amend the Criminal Code. It would create an indictable Criminal Code offence of recruiting somebody to join a criminal organization. The offence would be punishable by a five-year maximum of imprisonment. And where the person recruited is a minor, there would be a mandatory minimum penalty of imprisonment of six months.

The act of recruitment would have to be shown to be done for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the criminal organization to facilitate or commit indictable offences. The bill sends a clear message that this behaviour will not be tolerated and will help the government advance its effort to protect youth from the threats proposed by organized crime.

While the government supports the bill and the creation of a new indictable offence, it recognizes there is a need for some technical amendments. These would not impact the substance of the proposed offence but would be required to ensure legal accuracy and a consistency between the English and the French versions of the bill, and a consistency with the language used elsewhere in the Criminal Code.

A number of the amendments I'm going to discuss, Mr. Chair, deal exactly with that, perhaps with the exception of the one proposed by Mr. Seeback, which is more substantial.

With regard to the first amendment, this deals with clause 13 as well as with clause 2. The first motion would amend the long title of the French version on page 1 of the bill. This motion should be considered together with the motions that propose to amend the French and English versions of clause 2 and the French and English versions of clause 13.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. We're into the second half of our meeting. We're going to do the clause-by-clause on Bill C-394.

When we do clause-by-clause, if there's a question you'd like to ask our official, Mr. Taylor, about an addition or an amendment that's in front of us, that's when we'll do it. We'll do it as we go through clause-by-clause.

We have eight amendments that were previously submitted to us. I think we have a ninth amendment from the NDP. We have one that I'll have to rule out of order, so we'll end up with eight in total at this point.

Let's start with clause-by-clause consideration.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

(On clause 2)

It has an amendment. It's amendment G-1, which stands for government-1.

Mr. Goguen, do you wish to speak to it?

[Andrew Swan]

Well, if there is an actual act of violence committed against somebody who's attempting to leave a gang, of course that would be a Criminal Code offence and it would allow the police to become involved. But where the gang uses their force to intimidate somebody, to threaten somebody—not just the gang member, but potentially their family, their friends, their associates—we think that is serious enough that it should be included in Bill C-394.

[Andrew Swan]

No, I think the question and response had to do with the five-year maximums set out in proposed Bill C-394. We would agree with expanding the circumstances under Bill C-394 to take into account where the recruitment is taking place.

[Andrew Swan]

Becoming involved in a gang is a long-term commitment, unfortunately. I don't want to overplay the hand, but it can be a life sentence for young people who live out the rest of their days in a gang.

We believe that guaranteed consequences for gang members who pursue this kind of activity are appropriate. There needs to be a message sent.

We know that gang members individually may not always act in a rational way, but we know that gang leaders know the law. We think having Bill C-394 in place will be something else for them to think about before they go out into our communities.

[Andrew Swan]

I can tell you that public safety does come at a cost. In Manitoba, just like in other provinces that have higher-than-average crime rates, we know that our costs are higher.

But you know, when it comes to providing guaranteed consequences for somebody who chooses to endanger my community, and to put young people at risk, we believe that having appropriate measures in place—as I said, guaranteed consequences—is worth the cost.

Mr. Casey, gangs know the law. They know that if they get young people involved, if they have an 11-year-old running drugs for them, there won't be a consequence.

I'm not suggesting in any way that there should be a consequence for an 11-year-old, but those who bring people into gangs know that if individuals are under 18, there will be a very different regime if the youth is caught.

Again, I'm not suggesting that's incorrect, but gangs know the law. We want gangs to know that this provision exists, that if they're caught recruiting, trying to get youth in, there will be a consequence. I think there's a real value to that in terms of protecting young people and giving the police the tools they need to work with gangs.

Just this morning, Devon Clunis, the new chief of the Winnipeg Police Service, was on the radio in Winnipeg talking about intentions to try to meet with gang leaders, to actually sit down and lay down the law, if you will.

I'd sure like Chief Clunis to have Bill C-394 on the books and be able to explain to gang members that if they go out into our communities and try to pursue young people, the police will have the tools they need to deal with them.

[Andrew Swan]

Well, yes. I just want to make sure whatever language becomes part of Bill C-394 and then part of the Criminal Code is clear—that it's not just coercion to get someone to join a gang, but coercion to keep somebody in a gang or a criminal organization. That's really the nuance.

We know all the tricks gangs employ to try to get young people involved. They may tell them a very different story from what happens when they're in the gang. We want to make sure, while we have this opportunity, to also address the actions of gang members to intimidate, to threaten, and to scare gang members, as well as their families, their friends, and their associates, with a goal of keeping the young person in the gang.

I haven't seen the particular section, but I hope you understand: it's dealing with getting members into the gangs, but it's also dealing with activities that are used to try to hold people in gangs.

[Andrew Swan]

Yes, for.... Well, let me put it another way. I can tell you that from the meetings I've had with various groups working with youth, and in speaking with youth directly, the problem that Bill C-394 is attempting to deal with is a real one, and it's a serious one. For a young person getting involved in a gang, it's a life sentence. Even worse, it can be a death sentence, both in Winnipeg and in other cities across the country.

I haven't really gone out on tour in Manitoba to ask whether the particulars of Bill C-394 are exactly what those groups would want. I think it is a legitimate effort to try to deal with a serious problem, and I think progress on this front is welcomed.

Again, while this bill is before the committee, we think there are some additional things that could be added to it. I would point out that the criminalization of recruiting gang members is something Manitoba has been asking for since 2006, as Madame Boivin indicated. We had a very complete process called the OCI, the organized crime initiative, whereby officials from our government went out and met with stakeholders, police forces, and others from across Canada and North America.

In the ministers meeting in 2006, Manitoba put forward 14 proposals for things that we felt we could do to make Canada hostile turf for organized crime. Many of those measures have been acted upon by the government, and we're thankful for that. This is one of the 14 that hasn't yet come to fruition. We think Bill C-394, perhaps with some work on the things we've suggested, would be a good step towards keeping our young people safe.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

My question is for Minister Swan.

The Toronto City Council passed a motion to unanimously support the passage of Bill C-394.

Before I go any further, Mr. Chair, this will be a short question, and I'd like to share my time with Mr. Seeback.

[Andrew Swan]

Our suggestion is that it could be written right into the main language in Bill C-394, but if an alternative is to make the activity at a place such as a community centre or school an aggravating factor, that would be a reasonable step for Parliament to take as well.

[Andrew Swan]

I will answer in English because we don't have enough time.

Certainly the Province of Manitoba does believe that building safer communities requires a balanced approach.

Today we're talking about a bill that is based on suppression and a change to the Criminal Code. We don't take our eye off the ball in terms of what we need to do in terms of supporting police and other organizations—the safer communities act in Manitoba, for example—as well as dealing with the root causes of crime and trying to find positive places for young people to go.

The Boys and Girls Club in Winnipeg gave the example of the positive things happening at the Boys and Girls Clubs, and the fact that young people are coming to the Boys and Girls Clubs for positive programming as then being a beacon, if you will, for gangs to try to find youth at risk and to try to indoctrinate them into a gang.

The idea of considering an amendment to Bill C-394 to include the place where something happens means that if somebody shows up at a place like that, it doesn't matter whether they're recruiting a youth or an adult; if they're on or near those places and are carrying on those activities, that in and of itself should be enough to be a criminal act.

We want those places to be safe. Whether it's the Boys and Girls Clubs, whether it's the Spence Neighbourhood Association, or whether it's Magnus Eliason community centre in my end of Winnipeg, we really think those places should be gang-free zones. Young people should be able to be kids, and not be indoctrinated into illegal activities.

We don't think we need to increase the maximum penalty that's set out in the bill, but we do think it could be recrafted to include the places where we think our young people should be safe to go.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being with us. Welcome to the committee, minister.

I'm glad to see that the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada support Bill C-394. I think it's important to stress the need for a balanced approach. I'm equally glad that Manitoba's justice minister also favours a multi-faceted strategy, one that isn't based solely on suppression. Unfortunately, however, this bill seems to focus strictly on suppression. But the two are not mutually exclusive. I think we really need to establish clarity around this, because it would be wrong to think that Bill C-394 is going to completely solve the whole problem of street gangs. This issue affects us, the members of Parliament, as well as our communities. Clearly, a balanced approach incorporates prevention, intervention and suppression.

I was pleasantly surprised, minister, at the number of organizations you had consulted with as part of your very extensive reform process in Manitoba. You also have some recommendations. You aren't necessarily of the opinion that Bill C-394 goes far enough. You also talked about gang-free zones such as schools and community centres. I'd like to hear more about that element.

Do you not think that the bill's comprehensive coverage applies, by extension, to specific elements? In other words, since the bill applies to all areas, it also applies to school zones. That means it could be an aggravating circumstance, as per the interpretation it already has if we look at the case law. Do you think sentences longer than five years are necessary? I didn't understand everything in your brief, and I didn't quite understand your reason for wanting to target schools and other recruitment zones.

[Dr. Rachel Gouin, Manager, Research and Public Policy, Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada]

Thank you.

Let me start by saying that we appreciate MP Parm Gill's efforts to keep children and youth safe from gangs and are happy that the Boys and Girls Clubs were included in consultations on this bill.

We are not opposed to Bill C-394. Our concerns are mostly related to the need for enhanced prevention efforts, which we understand the committee and Mr. Gill also support, and rehabilitative programs for youth who want to rebuild their lives outside gangs.

Most young people are not gang involved, but the small number who are have a disproportionate impact on their communities. Some of our clubs are located in neighbourhoods that are affected by the presence of gangs and are familiar with the violence that accompanies this presence.

The situation at the Boys and Girls Clubs of Winnipeg has been cited as an example of recruitment tactics that would be addressed by this bill. One of their club locations is in a community that has a high number of newcomers. Gang members stand in a parking lot a mere 100 feet from the club and wait to recruit youth. This poses a challenge to the safety of youth who attend club activities. The club works with local police to address this issue, but it's a recurring one, and we understand that Bill C-394 is the kind of law that would help. It would provide police officers with tools to deal with such recruitment.

We also have consulted Boys and Girls Clubs in the Toronto, Regina, and Vancouver areas, which have informed us of more subtle recruitment tactics. We know from these clubs that homelessness is a significant factor in young people's involvement in gangs. Youth are more vulnerable to recruitment and sexual exploitation if they have unstable housing situations that include expectations about doing their part.

These clubs also tell us that youth are born into families that are entrenched in gang life, and for them there is no real decision. They are assumed to be part of the gang. The repercussions are very severe should they deviate from that.

Finally, we heard about entrepreneurial youth whose talents are wasted in a lifestyle that has no promising future.

Recruitment is not always clearly identifiable, as in the Winnipeg case, but the repercussions of being disloyal, as we've already heard, are always severe.

How can we protect our youth from being recruited into gangs? The legal system certainly has a role to play in addressing coercive, intimidating, and violent tactics. As well, should Bill C-394 become law, it will also punish those who recruit young people into this lifestyle and who target minors.

Young people don't join gangs out of the blue. The risk factors are well documented. If we can act on these factors early enough, we increase our chances of keeping children and youth safe.

Gangs can become rooted in impoverished communities with inadequate resources for youth. Those who face the greatest social and economic disadvantage are most likely to be targeted by recruiters and lured by the promise of belonging, protection, and money, whether or not that promise is fulfilled. These same youth are most vulnerable to being utilized by those who are higher in the ranks to take part in criminal activities, as we've already heard, including recruiting other youth.

Once a person is in a gang or is assumed to be part of the gang because of a family member or a friend, the choices they have are more difficult. They have to choose between the risk of being caught and facing criminal charges or the risk of retaliation by the gang, which is a very real risk. I find the proposal by Minister Swan to criminalize threats to keep people in gangs interesting, because certainly we have heard from our clubs that this is also an issue. Walking out is not easy.

But we can offer young people more options before they get to that point. The Boys and Girls Clubs strongly believe that if we provide vulnerable youth with a genuinely safe place to stay, access to programs that support their well-being, education, employment, and life aspirations, we can divert them from gang membership. Legal measures and policing will help. We also need youth programs in communities and sustained, targeted interventions for those who face known risk factors and who are more vulnerable to being recruited. Also, we need to have mental health and employment supports in place for those who want to leave, those who have been gang involved and want to turn their lives around.

We are pleased to hear from your previous meeting that young offenders would be dealt with under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Providing a restorative justice option for minors who have been charged with recruiting will allow them to see the impact that recruitment has on other youth and on the community and will offer them a way out for themselves. Easily accessible mental health services would also play an important role in these cases, helping youth to heal from the trauma they may have experienced in the gang or at home.

In 2012 reductions were made to the youth justice services funding program, which supports provinces in offering these rehabilitative programs. We hope to see investments in crime prevention to ensure that fewer youth go down that path in the first place.

As was mentioned in our brief, we are pleased to hear the government announce the next phase of the youth gang prevention fund, and feel strongly that, given the seriousness of the situation we're facing, more could be done.

As the committee now considers how Bill C-394 can help protect children and youth from being targeted into gangs, we'd encourage you to also recommend complementary measures to help Canada's youth be more resilient. Enhancing funding for the youth justice fund and the youth gang prevention fund would be a good place to start.

Thank you.

[Andrew Swan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Manitoba]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson.

On behalf of the people of Manitoba, thank you for the opportunity to present on Bill C-394.

I'm not going to read through my submission word for word. Let me say at the start that we support Bill C-394. I commend MP Parm Gill for bringing this forward. I appreciate Mr. Gill's visit to the Manitoba legislature some time ago to discuss it.

Let me also say at the outset that you're all welcome to come and visit us in Manitoba whenever we're talking about working together to build safer communities.

We do believe that the bill can be made even better and more effective, and this is the time to get it right.

My home province of Manitoba is a great place. It's a place where we celebrate diversity. Also, StatsCan has told us once again that we are the most generous people in all of Canada. Of course, among other things, we're celebrating having NHL hockey back.

But I have to tell the committee that I can't deny the challenges that are posed by crime. Our crime rates and our incarceration rates, like those of other western provinces, are higher than the national average. Along with Saskatchewan, we often experience the highest crime rates of any of the provinces, and it has been that way in Manitoba for many decades.

Our government is meeting those challenges through a balanced approach to building safer communities. In part, of course, that's about making the right laws, both here and in Winnipeg, within our competence as a province. We get there by support for law enforcement, and we get there by preventing crime from happening in the first place. As you'll see from this submission, our government has been very active on all three of these fronts in taking a balanced approach to dealing with public safety issues.

We see every budget that our government brings in as a chance to invest in our young people and a chance to build safer communities. That means greater education, better training, more recreational opportunities, and support for groups such as the Boys and Girls Clubs, which do such good work, and of course it means standing shoulder to shoulder with police and law enforcement in the province of Manitoba.

When it comes to laws, I don't want to brag, but Manitoba has for many years punched above its weight in terms of bringing forward solid proposals, in working with the federal government, whatever political stripe that government may be, and in working with provinces and territories, again without being politically partisan, to try to get better laws to keep our communities safer.

Still, there are challenges in many communities. The area I represent is the west end of Winnipeg. It has always been a place for people to start a new life. It's where my grandfather came to from Scotland almost a century ago. There have been successive waves of immigrants from Iceland, Italy, Portugal, Vietnam, the Philippines, and African countries. It is still a place where people can come as immigrants through our provincial nominee program, sometimes as refugees and sometimes as people moving from northern communities and seeking a better life in Canada.

I prefer to spend all my time talking about the promise and the potential of youth in areas like mine. I spend time at my local high schools, such as Daniel McIntyre and Tec Voc, and I see youth fulfilling their potential in academics, in skilled trades, in sports, and in the arts. But sadly, I have to tell you that in areas like mine there are youth who don't have positive things keeping them on the right side of the law.

There are youth who aren't involved in school, who may not be involved in sports, who may not have a faith community, or who may not have other positive influences to keep them on the right side of the law. These are youth who, let me say very clearly, are at risk of being recruited by gangs and criminal organizations. These are youth who are at risk of being exploited. Certainly, I don't know what's worse: you see youth who may have a developmental delay like FASD or others who are bright with potential who fall under the influence of gangs.

Make no mistake: the gangs know the laws. They recruit those under 18 because they know that the Youth Criminal Justice Act will have a very different set of consequences for youth who are apprehended by the police. Also, tragically, they recruit those under 12, because they know there will be no repercussions if those youth are picked up by the police.

Gang life is dangerous. Gang life closes out family, friends, school, and community. Many young people who get brought into gangs, who are coerced to join gangs, find that there is no financial benefit. There's a cutting off of all the things that the youth have been involved with, and there is no easy way out.

Being involved in a gang increases the risk of violence to an individual and even the risk of death. The criminal organizations and gangs of course advance their own financial goals. Their greed leads them into the drug trade and into prostitution. It leads them into smuggling guns. This provides violence and intimidation and it wreaks havoc on communities just like the one I represent in Winnipeg.

The changes to the Criminal Code that are suggested in Bill C-394 are warranted. They would better define what recruitment is.

This bill would provide guaranteed consequences, which we say are needed in order to take on those who would recruit young people into gangs. It also increases the range of penalties that could be imposed by a court if somebody were found guilty of this provision.

There are existing provisions in the Criminal Code that I'm told by my crown attorneys and that I expect to hear from police are unclear and difficult to prove and that don't adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence, namely recruiting people into a life of crime in a gang or criminal organization.

That being said, we believe the bill can be improved. We have two ideas as to how that can happen.

The first is that the bill should not apply only to criminalized recruitment of youth into gangs. It should also apply to threats and coercion used to keep young people in gangs. I've spoken with many youth and youth providers in Winnipeg and elsewhere in Manitoba, and they tell me that when youth become involved, they discover the violence, the threats, and the lack of a future, and they even find their gang involvement is limiting where they can safely go and whether they can attend school. These youth tell us they fear reprisals against them, their family, and their friends if they try to leave the gang and put that negative life behind. It is how gangs and criminal organizations operate: by intimidating people and by threatening them and their families to try to keep them involved in the criminal organization.

For that reason we believe Bill C-394 could even be expanded, not just to criminalize recruitment but to criminalize the threats and intimidation used to keep young people involved in gangs.

Secondly, we believe Bill C-394 could be improved by being applied to anyone recruiting in places where youth are expected to gather, the very places I think all of us want to keep safe, such as schools and schoolyards, community centres, friendship centres, and parks—places where we want it to be safe for young people to go.

One example of that in Manitoba is our Lighthouses program. The Department of Justice and the Department of Children and Youth Opportunities provide funding to keep some 70 community centres and similar places open in the evenings and on weekends to be a beacon and a safe place for young people to go. If somebody arrives at one of those facilities with the goal of recruiting somebody into their gang or their criminal organization, we believe whether or not the person recruiting is under 18 it should be a criminal offence.

Our goal obviously is to make Canada a place that's inhospitable territory for gangs and for organized crime. We believe, through the collective efforts of governments, we can do more on the prevention side through education, recreation, and opportunities. We can continue to work together to support police, but certainly we want to have the right laws in place. Bill C-394, in Manitoba's view, is the right step to take.

I would ask the members of the committee to consider amending the bill, as I have suggested, because this is our chance to get it right and to protect our country's most valuable resource, our young people.

I'm certainly open to questions the committee may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We'll get started. Thank you very much for coming to meeting number 66 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 20, 2012, we are discussing Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment).

Ladies and gentlemen, we have an hour's worth of questions and presentations from three different groups, three different witnesses. Then we will suspend for a few minutes while we switch over, and we will do clause-by-clause after that. We have eight amendments. We will talk about those when the time comes.

First of all, we have Minister Andrew Swan, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for the Government of Manitoba.

Thank you very much for coming.

From the Winnipeg Police Association we have George VanMackelbergh.

Thank you very much.

From the Boys and Girls Clubs we have Rachel Gouin and Marlene Deboisbriand.

We'll start in the order that I've introduced you.

Minister Swan, you are first to speak, for 10 minutes, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We'll call the meeting back to order.

We have officials from the Department of Justice with us. Thank you very much for staying. We have them for 45 minutes.

We do have to vote, ladies and gentlemen—well, we don't have to—but there is an opportunity to vote on the votes that are presented here in the main estimates. That will take no more than five minutes.

Just a reminder that on Monday, we are having our meeting again on Bill C-394. On Monday we hope to do clause-by-clause study of Parm Gill's bill, the bill we were dealing with on Monday, so if you have any amendments, give them to the clerk by Friday. That would be appreciated.

Let's start with Madame Boivin.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

The courts have already ruled that criminal organization recruitment is covered by the current provisions for participating in the activities of a criminal organization under section 467.11 of the Criminal Code, and that instructing the commission of an offence for a criminal organization is covered by section 467.13 of the Criminal Code. In light of that, do you believe that Bill C-394 is necessary?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

You don't connect them? Very well. I'll ask you something else, and it has a direct connection to your bill.

In your opinion, does Bill C-394 respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in particular, the freedom of association, enshrined in section 2(d), and the principles outlined in the Youth Criminal Justice Act, in particular, the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank my colleagues and the entire committee for giving me an opportunity to appear before you to discuss my private member's Bill C-394.

I would like to begin my submission by outlining some of the practical points of the bill, followed by some supporting research, and then conclude with some personal points on why I believe this legislation is necessary.

First and foremost, this bill is seeking to further protect our youth and our communities by criminalizing the act of criminal organization recruitment. Second, this bill is seeking to provide our law enforcement officials and our justice system with the proper tools to address gang-related issues. In doing so, this bill will provide prosecutors and law enforcers with the proper tools to address the issue of gang recruitment in communities across Canada.

Each one of us in this committee and every Canadian would agree that our youth will define the trajectory of this country, and that trajectory will be determined by the types of opportunities our youth are given. Young Canadians have a sense of vulnerability, and I think all my honourable colleagues here today will agree that this vulnerability is worth protecting.

Under this new amendment, anyone who for the purpose of enhancing a criminal organization solicits, encourages, or invites a person to join a criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence, which carries a punishment of imprisonment up to five years. Furthermore, anyone who recruits, solicits, or invites an individual under the age of 18 to join a criminal organization will face a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in prison. These amendments will allow our justice system to appropriately hold accountable for their actions those who recruit individuals into criminal organizations.

I would now like to present some research to the committee that helps to support the need for this bill.

In a 2008 publication, the RCMP found that street gangs in Canada are increasingly aggressive with their recruitment tactics. In a disturbing trend, these criminal organizations are targeting youth under the age of 12 and as young as age eight. These ruthless gangs pursue our vulnerable youth for several reasons. They know that those falling within this age range cannot be formally charged with a criminal offence. They also know that our youth can easily be pressured to participate in a variety of criminal activities.

Our innocent and vulnerable citizens are being manipulated, coerced, and at times forced to embark on a life that no Canadian should ever experience. In 2006 CSIS estimated that approximately 11,000 street gang members were under the age of 30. The report cautioned that this number would continue to grow rapidly over the coming years.

In Peel region, which my family and I call home, the number of gangs has exploded in the last few years. In 2003 there were 39; today there are well over 110 street gangs in our neighbourhoods. This means more young people are targeted and more violence is used.

The 2002 Canadian Police Survey on Youth Gangs, conducted under contract to the Department of the Solicitor General, was the first of its kind in this country. This landmark study identified some startling figures that I would like to share with the committee.

Of 264 Canadian police services surveyed, 57% believe that the youth gang problem is getting worse. Most concerning is the fact that 44% reported that youth gang members have an established relationship with larger organized crime groups. These figures show there is a need to recognize this problem in Canada and do all we can as members of Parliament to help law enforcement keep our communities and our youth safe.

While I was in the early stages of drafting this bill, I took the time to travel across our great nation to consult with numerous departments, organizations, and stakeholders who are dedicated to working with youth involved in gangs. During these consultation meetings, I learned the stark reality that many of these youth who become involved in gangs face on a day-to-day basis. The vast majority of youth I met with told me that if they had a legitimate opportunity to exit the gang, they would do so, and that if given the choice, they would not have chosen that lifestyle.

One youth I sat down with told me that he had been involved in a gang for over seven years. This individual was only 19 years old. He explained to me that instead of being involved with school, friends, family, and sports, he was robbing drug dealers, attacking rival gang members, and selling drugs on the street. This was a kid who had excelled within that criminal organization because that was the only life he knew. I couldn't help but picture his work ethic allowing him to lead an extraordinarily successful and law-abiding life. Had this legislation been in place at the time that this young man was recruited, his recruiters may have been deterred and his life may have taken a more positive path as a result.

During my consultation in Winnipeg, I met with the president and CEO of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Winnipeg. He told me a story which I believe exemplifies the need for this legislation. For anyone who doesn't know about the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada, it's a nationwide organization that works with troubled youth in urban areas, and as a result they often come into contact with youth involved in gangs.

The CEO told me that one of their inner-city club gang members would wait in the parking garage directly behind the building with the sole purpose of engaging young people in hopes of recruiting them into gangs. This is only a small example of the tactics that are used to target our youth. We need to provide our law enforcement agencies and courts with every possible tool to ensure our youth are protected and that these individuals are held accountable.

This bill was read a first time on February 13, 2012. Since then there have been countless instances of gang-related violence across our country. Whether it is in Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, or other parts of the country, time and again the most extreme instances of violence can be attributed to gangs. I urge this committee to consider the benefit of this legislation in helping to improve the future and well-being of our youth and our communities.

I would like to thank the committee again for inviting me here to speak. I look forward to discussing this bill and answering any questions you may have for me.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I call this meeting back to order.

I'm referring to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 20, 2012, Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment). It's a private member's bill introduced by Mr. Parm Gill, the MP for Brampton—Springdale, and he is here for an hour to talk about his bill.

The floor is yours, Mr. Gill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I call this meeting to order. I am using my BlackBerry time, not the clock at the back.

This is meeting number 64 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The orders of the day are, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of expenditure plans for Justice Canada in 2012-13. This is in regard to the supplementary (C)s, which I've brought with me if anybody wants to look at them. We are fortunate to have Justice officials here for half an hour.

At four o'clock we will go to Bill C-394. The mover of that bill, Mr. Gill, the member of Parliament for Brampton—Springdale, will be here for an hour. We should be done at about five o'clock.

For future reference, next Monday, a week from today, we will have witnesses on that bill, and then in the second half of the meeting we will do clause-by-clause consideration. On Wednesday we will have the minister here to speak on the main estimates for the upcoming year. That meeting will be held in Centre Block, so remember that it won't be in this room. The minister will be here for the first hour, and then we'll have officials for the second hour.

Next, I've had some preliminary discussions, but I have yet to speak to the Liberals. Massimo is sponsoring Bill S-209, which is the fighting bill, as I call it. We may deal with that on the Wednesday before the break; that would be a week Wednesday. We may do it all in one meeting if we get permission from everyone. We'll have the sponsor of the bill in this case, because it comes from the Senate, and some witnesses, and we may do clause-by-clause study on the same day.

That is the plan for the next two weeks, ladies and gentlemen.

With that, Mr. Pentney, I'll turn the floor over to you. The officials have a few opening remarks, and then we'll go to questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

No, I think I'll do it tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., if you really want to show up.

Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House? Oh, sorry. There's no amendment, so it doesn't need a reprint. I thought we'd just kill a few trees, but I guess not.

Very good. That's it for tonight. I want to thank everyone for coming back.

Just so my colleagues know, we had invited the minister for the 18th to talk about supplementary (C)s, in which Justice has one line. The minister cannot make it at that time. My understanding is that there's a cabinet meeting or some sort of cabinet event.

Based on our discussion, we will go to Parm Gill's bill, Bill C-394. He will be the first hour, with witnesses there, and then we'll have another hour of witnesses on the Wednesday, and then we'll go clause by clause.

What happens with estimates and supplementary (C)s, or any supplementary estimates, is that they have to be presented in the House within three days after the last supply day, which may happen prior to that anyway, so we'll see. I'm not sure when the supply dates are. Those are called by the House leader.

That's what we'll be doing on the 18th. The main estimates have to be back in the House by the end of May, so I think we should set a date or dates to talk about the mains and give the minister lots of notice about when we would like him to appear for those.

[Donald Piragoff, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy Sector, Department of Justice]

Thank you.

As I understand the question, it's whether there should be some concordance between this bill and another bill that's before Parliament, and if that bill is passed whether certain references in the Criminal Code already to certain provisions of section 467 of the Code should also make reference to whatever is passed by Bill C-394.

The other bill would have to make provision to make any consequential amendments. This bill cannot assume that another bill would be passed. It will have to be that other bill that makes consequential amendments to other pieces of legislation before Parliament.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Proposed paragraph 196.1(5)(a) concerns extensions of the notification period in relation to offences under sections 467.11, 467.12 and 467.13 of the Criminal Code, which are the three existing criminal organization offences.

However, Bill C-394, which is also before this committee, would create a distinct criminal organization offence, recruitment of members by a criminal organization, which would be new section 467.11 of the Criminal Code.

In your view, is there a reason why this proposed offence should be treated differently from other criminal organization offences, for the purposes of extending the notification period? If not, what amendments need to be made?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here.

My first question is about Bill C-55 and Bill C-394. It is assumed they will soon receive royal assent. In that case, what amendments would be necessary to ensure they are consistent with the Criminal Code?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Thank you.

I have another question, Minister. You may be aware that I have introduced a bill in the House, Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act, which basically targets individuals who are responsible for recruiting youth, mainly, and other individuals into criminal organizations, or, in other words, gangs. It has passed second reading in the House. I was very thankful to have the government's support on this, and that of the official opposition, but unfortunately, I guess the Liberal Party did not see this as an important initiative.

My question to you as minister is, can you confirm that if the police refer an individual who is part of a youth gang, the RCMP would consider that individual?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That's it. Thank you very much.

Thank you to our panel for coming this afternoon.

I want to thank the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for coming.

I want to thank the RCMP for being here. My grandfather was an RCMP officer and, in fact, in the Musical Ride. We're very proud of the work he did, and I want to thank you for your service.

Just as a reminder to committee members, it would be preferable that amendments come in advance. We will be doing this bill clause by clause in the second hour of our Wednesday meeting, so amendments to Bill S-9 would be greatly appreciated 24 hours in advance.

Also, to all parties here, if you have witnesses you're interested in seeing for the two studies we'll do after we get back from our break week, on Bill C-273 and Bill C-394, the two private member's bills, if you would provide those to the clerk in the near future, that would be greatly appreciated.

With that, we'll adjourn and call it a day.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights considering the extension of time to consider Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment).

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to requesting an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment).

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

I was the first in line, but it's okay, I'll go third.

I simply wanted to tell my colleagues that the approach to Bill C-273 and Bill C-394 was identical to the motion moved by Mr. Garrison. The motion was agreed to, challenged and then agreed to again. Mr. Anderson, who isn't allowed to vote, has shown up here out of the blue and raised some sort of procedural sticking point on the basis that the request has not been justified, when the motion has been agreed to and challenged before.

Since I prefer to have the chair listen to me when I speak, I will wait. I still have the floor. When you spend years at the appeal court, you fall into that kind of habit. When judges start speaking amongst themselves, you say

there's no fucking—

Sorry.

I withdraw that. He wasn't listening, in any case.

I was saying how nice you are.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

We also did it for Bill C-394 and Bill C-273, last week. We voted in favour of Bill C-273, sponsored by our Liberal colleague, Hedy Fry, so we could study those provisions thoroughly.

We are at clause 2 and we barely have an hour left. No doubt our new committee member, who has the right to speak but not to vote, has a number of questions because he did not have the benefit of hearing the various witnesses. Given that there is such interest in the topic, as we can see, and if the questions are, as they would say in English, perfectly

genuine and come from the heart,

we see no logical reason not to allow the extension, given the small window we have. December 10 is fast approaching. This isn't an unreasonable request, as we see it.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-394 under private members' business.

The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank my hon. colleagues from all sides for participating in the debate on this important piece of legislation.

Bill C-394 is the legislation that Canada needs in order to make our streets and communities safer for everyone to enjoy.

This is not about politics or partisanship. It is my belief and hope that when it comes to protecting our youth and our most vulnerable citizens, we are all on the same side. Our youth are our future, and it is our responsibility to provide an environment in which they can reach their greatest potential. This bill is a necessity in today's environment.

Recently, the necessity for this bill has been made even more clear. Two heartbreaking and tragic examples of gang activity have instilled horror and fear in communities across this country.

The tragic shooting which took place at the Eaton Centre in Toronto seems to have been fuelled by an internal gang rift. The shooting claimed two lives and injured numerous others. The shooter's father said that his son was changed by his involvement in gangs at an early age.

This incident put the security and safety of law-abiding citizens in jeopardy. My most heartfelt and deepest condolences go out to the families and loved ones of those affected by this horrific violence.

This week Canadians were horrified by the story of a 16-year-old girl from Winnipeg. This young girl was taken around to different lawyers' offices by a street gang in hopes of her signing a sworn statement falsely pinning the blame of operating a crack house solely on her.

This highlights the brazen lengths to which gangs will go to manipulate our most vulnerable citizens without a care for their well-being, safety or future. Gangs have absolutely no regard for the lives of innocent Canadian citizens. We need to do something about this, and the time is now.

It has been noted by the RCMP, CSIS and front-line service workers that gang recruitment is a growing problem in our neighbourhoods. These entities have cautioned that Canada's gang population will continue to grow as a byproduct of aggressive recruitment.

While restorative and preventive programs and measures are needed, there is a legal void that needs to be filled. Bill C-394 would fill that void. There are far too many youth today who are coerced, manipulated and at times forced to join gangs.

The realities of the gang lifestyle are heartbreaking. Death, guns, drugs, violence, substance abuse, criminal activity and prostitution are all too common in this environment. It is a lifestyle in which no person should ever find himself or herself, yet far too many do.

It is our responsibility not only as elected representatives but as citizens of this country to work together in an effort to make our future safe for all.

This proposed legislation is an important tool that our criminal justice system needs in order to address this growing concern. The act of gang recruitment does not just affect those directly involved, but it also is a danger to families, communities and the safety of every Canadian.

Young Canadians, regardless of where they grow up, should be able to grow and explore their potential in a safe environment. It is an unfortunate and disheartening reality that youth today are targeted by active and violent gangs. The means by which these gangs recruit our youth are inhumane and life altering.

This reality necessitates the quick passage of Bill C-394, because one person recruited into a gang is one person too many. It is time to take action so that families do not need to live in fear in communities across this country and can enjoy the safety and security that we all deserve.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support Bill C-394 going to committee.

I think we have an opportunity here for some serious cross-party co-operation with respect to this private member's bill. That said, I have some of the same concerns I always do with private members' bills being the vehicle for criminal law reform. They have serious limitations, limitations I will address a little bit in my remarks, and that is why I was very pleased to see that one of the parliamentary secretaries to the Minister of Justice is involved in the file. I hope that as much as possible, a broader, more holistic justice department input to this private member's bill can be forthcoming.

We are all aware that street gangs are becoming more and more of a problem in this country. My own city, Toronto, is ranked among the cities having the largest growing problem. We all know recent events at the Eaton Centre in Toronto, which is actually linked to ongoing gang violence within an area very close to my own riding, although not exactly in my riding, of Regent's Park where, at the end of March on one evening alone, five different incidents occurred producing 90 bullets flying around a housing community in that one evening. The escalating gang violence in that area of Toronto was what, it appears, led to the shooting at the crowded Eaton Centre food court.

Clearly something is wrong, if not terribly wrong, and we must act now, so I welcome the member's private member's bill. It is completely consistent with what the NDP has been calling for since the 2011 election, when it was part of our campaign platform to create an offence for gang recruitment.

That said, we recognize that it cannot be viewed in isolation as an ad hoc measure, which brings me back to the concerns I have with private members' bills and their limitations.

It is important that we rely, as we move forward to committee, on serious, expert studies about what works and what does not and how this one provision will and will not fit with a broader, more holistic strategy.

There is a 2010 report from a leading academic, Scott Wortley, of the University of Toronto, called “Youth, Gangs and Violence: Characteristic Causes and Prevention Strategy”. In this report he notes a few things that are very important for us to keep in mind, because I would like to focus mostly on the issue of youth. He says, “Gang violence is more likely to occur in public spaces, involve weapons, especially firearms, and involve multiple victims...and is more likely to result in the victimization of innocent bystanders”.

He goes on to speak more generally about the involvement of youth gang members in much higher levels of crime and violence than non-gang youth as something that studies in Canada and in other countries have consistently shown.

He finally notes that youth gang members are much more likely to themselves become victims of serious violence, including homicide, than youth who are not involved in gangs, and I think this is really important for us to remember. In this respect it helps us consider the fact that members of gangs themselves can be viewed as, and are, victims.

One of the issues that will be coming up in committee, I hope, is youth recruiting youth. It is not simply a matter of youth being recruited, but as youth as recruiters. It is not entirely clear what a criminalization provision will do to that very important complex social fact. We have to keep in mind that members of youth gangs are, not surprisingly, youth. They are used for the recruitment of their peers, and simply criminalizing that behaviour would not get us very far, I submit.

We have to counter the flaring up of violence and what looks to be the increase in gang activity not only by clamping down on violence in a pure Criminal Code mode but also by looking for more long-term solutions. As Professor Wortley said in his report, “Enforcement alone is not going to stop this problem”.

We have to focus on prevention. Members opposite sometimes feel that the NDP overdoes its focus on prevention. They think that somehow this means the NDP is soft on crime. Far from it; it simply means we understand the most effective ways to root out crime before it starts and to prevent it from occurring again.

There is a whole continuum of measures that need to be put in place by a society to give opportunities to those who might otherwise turn to crime or, in this instance, those who might be susceptible to being recruited. If they fall off the wagon, so to speak, they end up being put in jail. We have to make sure that downstream measures within our jail system do not recreate the tendencies to engage in criminal behaviour. This more holistic, long-term and continuum-like approach of the NDP is perfectly consistent with a hard-on-crime approach; it is just a smart-on-crime approach as well.

Gangs have always targeted young people, but they seem to be doing so increasingly. As the member for Brampton—Springdale, who introduced the bill, stated in his own introduction, criminal organizations do appear to be targeting youth as young as eight years old and quite commonly in the age of 12 and 13 to participate in criminal activities and to become actual members of organizations. Members are even hanging around boys and girls clubs just, for example, hoping to recruit innocent children.

As we have already heard from the member for Ottawa South and the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, the most vulnerable to be recruited tend to be young people who are marginalized, those who are from lower socio-economic groups, those who are from tougher family situations and some who in a more long-term sense are looking ahead to their future prospects in society and are in some despair about where the opportunities do and do not lie for them. These background social facts are as important as the immediate goal of preventing recruitment or preventing organized crime youth gang activity itself.

The NDP's priority is to approach this using a balanced approach. We want to make sure that people live in safe, non-violent communities by putting the emphasis on more programs to prevent young people from being recruited into gangs. I am speaking of programs like the Remix Project created some five years ago in Toronto to serve the needs of young people who are vulnerable to being recruited to gangs.

I have had the opportunity with colleagues to have an early meeting with boys and girls club representatives, knowing the bill would be coming forward. I urge other members to listen to their perspectives and the perspectives of other organizations that work closely with youth.

Among the concerns we heard in what was at this stage still a fairly casual discussion was exactly what I have already raised. The youth being recruited by youth issue cannot be ignored. It has to be directed head on. Youth themselves can be recruiters, and this will criminalize their behaviour as well as anybody else who is recruiting.

The second part of the strategy is that we need to have programs and measures that take a positive approach and create bright options for youth looking into the future. These two messages I took away from our early conversations as being absolutely key.

The NDP has called for an offence of gang recruitment, but we have also put it in the context of a long-standing defence of such measures such as putting more police into communities and creating dedicated youth gang prevention funds and activities.

Let me now go to three concerns about the bill that have to be taken into account. We cannot simply say that we are in favour of it in principle and would like to see it in committee and that therefore everything is fine. It is not entirely fine.

The first point is that the nature of the private member's bill means that at least from the beginning, the justice department is not involved. We do not have anything resembling a whole-of-government approach to the bill. It is one of the classic areas that I hope I have already outlined in my remarks that needs a more holistic, continuum-like approach to the issue.

That does not mean that something like this cannot go forward on its own, but it will be a real shame if we lose the opportunity to build this initiative into a much broader understanding of what else is out there and, most importantly, what needs to be put in place for this not to be simply a punitive approach to the problem. It is an approach that is necessary as part of the solution, but on its own, it will only make us feel good but get nothing done.

It is important to note, and I do not mean to make this sound too partisan, but the Conservatives have not been generally favourable to the preventive side. In January 2011, a scarce year ago, the Conservatives announced severe cuts to the youth gang prevention fund, and it was only a push-back from the NDP that had that reinstated.

The Conservatives need to approach this more holistically. We have to focus on the mandatory minimum concern that was already brought up.

Finally, we really have to look at the issue of youth recruiting other youth, and make sure the committee process hears from witnesses who know about that and have real ideas on how to deal with it.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I am obviously in favour of such a proposal and urge all members to support its passage into law.

The issue of gang recruitment is a serious one, and it requires a multi-faceted response. Neither I nor my colleagues are naive enough to think that this bill, by itself, will solve the problem of gang recruitment. However, we believe that a criminal justice system plays an extremely important role in the overall strategy to respond to organized crime.

It is also obvious that prevention efforts must be put in place so that those newly involved in organized crime, or those who are thinking about joining a gang, are meaningfully deterred from these opportunities. This is particularly true when those efforts are targeting young people who have not yet gone down the path to a life of serious crime.

As has already been said, this government has, through budget 2011, invested $10 million to support youth gang prevention activities. It is also important to recall that the government, in 2009, amended the Criminal Code to strengthen the gang peace bond provisions. As members may know, peace bonds require an individual to agree to specific conditions to keep the peace. They can be issued when it is feared, on reasonable grounds, that persons will join a criminal organization and commit a criminal organization offence.

I am told that these provisions of the Criminal Code are frequently relied upon by police in cities such as Winnipeg and Toronto and are an important prevention tool in the fight against organized crime. The government recognizes the value of prevention, but we must do more.

There is, however, a need to recognize the limits of prevention. Many of those involved in organized crime are hardened criminals who will not be dissuaded by prevention activities. Frankly speaking, many of these same individuals are not dissuaded by the possibility of jail time. They see that such a possibility is part of the cost of doing business.

In such cases, the criminal law must respond clearly to behaviours society has deemed unacceptable. In this respect, the proposal to create a stand-alone offence to target gang recruitment is appropriate. In doing so, we ensure that there is a full spectrum of responses to recruitment practices. We also make clear our disapproval and our belief that such conduct must be denounced, deterred, and punished, given the increased threats to society posed by larger criminal organizations.

In looking at the proposed offence, it is important to be clear that it is not targeting the mere association of individuals. Rather, the focus of the offence is recruitment done for the purposes of enhancing the ability of criminal organizations to facilitate or commit an indictable offence.

The proposed offence's focus is consistent with the purpose of the existing participation offence found at section 467.11 of the Criminal Code and is now well understood by the courts in Canada. In this respect, the jurisprudence under this existing participation offence will likely be helpful in informing the correct interpretation of the proposed offence as it is used by police and prosecutors.

For example, the concept of facilitation has been interpreted on many occasions to mean “to make easier”. Accordingly, I expect that this new offence will be quickly relied upon and will be familiar to many in the criminal justice system.

I would also like to take a moment to address the concerns expressed by some that the new offence is not required, as the existing participation offence already addresses recruitment. As my colleague from Delta—Richmond previously stated, laws must not only be clear, but must be clearly understood. This is an important principle and one that I will strongly support. Our laws must be accessible to all Canadians, police, prosecutors, and the courts. Clearly written and clearly understood laws make the identification of relevant evidence easier for police and make the job of the prosecutor easier.

Clear laws benefit accused individuals as they help to ensure that they properly understand what is and is not legal. And of course, clear laws help the courts in determining guilt or innocence.

This is particularly important in the area of organized crime. I am aware that a common concern expressed by police and prosecutors, in investigating this type of crime, is that the laws are complex. While the proposed amendments will not address all of the complexities, they will certainly assist in making obvious to all that the act of recruiting someone to join a criminal organization is a form of participation and is therefore liable to sanction.

I would also note in passing that terrorism offences, which are modelled on the organized crime offences, also deal with the issue of recruitment. For example, the participation in activity of terrorist group offences found at 83.18 of the Criminal Code makes explicit that participating in the activities of a terrorist group include recruitment. While this is all included in one single offence, in my opinion, there is nothing different, from a policy perspective, in making this explicit in a single offence, as is done in terrorism, or in two offences, as is proposed through Bill C-394. The result is the same.

In addition to establishing a new offence, this private member's bill, Bill C-394, makes a number of other consequential amendments to ensure that the new offence is subject to the same special rules in the area of criminal procedure, evidence and sentencing as are the existing organized crime offences. This makes perfect sense and I support these proposals.

Let me close by noting the following as stated in the recently released seventh report, of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, entitled “The State of Organized Crime”:

Organized crime poses a serious long-term threat to Canada’s institutions, society, economy, and to our individual quality of life.

We must take all steps possible to ensure that our responses to these threats constantly evolve, so that our children are safe to grow and play in their communities, our businesses thrive, and our quality of life is preserved.

I urge all members to support Bill C-394.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be joining the debate on this bill, which seeks to respond to a practice that is critical to the success of organized crime activity in Canada: the recruitment of persons to join criminal organizations.

Colleagues have heard so far during debate on our second reading of this bill that those who are most likely to be recruited to join criminal organizations are most often young and marginalized in society. They suffer socio-economic inequality, and they come from difficult family circumstances.

These vulnerable young persons need to be protected from the tactics of organized crime. That is what I understand private member's Bill C-394 to be trying to do.

This bill, which would amend the Criminal Code to explicitly prohibit the recruitment of others to join a criminal organization, is a welcome contribution to tackling the practices of gangs. I want to congratulate the member for Brampton—Springdale for bringing it forward.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased to participate in this debate today. This is a really important issue for Canadians and for our communities.

I want to commend the member who has put forward Bill C-394 as a very sincere and thoughtful effort to do something about the proliferation of gangs and gang membership across Canadian society. I think it is a very well-motivated and good-faith initiative.

It tries to make it an offence to recruit, solicit, encourage or even invite a person to join a criminal organization. It would change the penalties if such a person did join a criminal organization. That is where we part ways with the member and the government. It is with respect to their position in this regard.

We strongly support efforts to combat and criminalize the recruitment of individuals, particularly young people, into gangs and criminal organizations. However, we are just as strongly opposed to mandatory minimum penalties. Studies everywhere on the planet prove that such sentences do not deter criminals or make Canadians safer.

However, we do support in the bill the expansion of the definition of “criminal organization offence” to include gang recruitment. This, we believe, would be a very good step toward dealing with our challenge, which is improving the situation of gangs and gang membership.

As I said, we are alarmed about the increasing number of Canadians, particularly young people, who are recruited into gangs. We support the criminalization of this activity.

However, with regard to this question of mandatory minimum sentences for gang recruitment, all the evidence from Canada, the United States, state by state by state; New Zealand; Australia; the United Kingdom; and everywhere this has been tried is overwhelmingly that mandatory minimums do not work. They are ineffective. They are often constitutionally challenged. They are problematic, because they remove the discretion from judges, who are best placed to assess the situation based on the evidence and the facts of the case in front of him or her.

We also know that mandatory minimums do not deter crime.

On the other hand, we know for sure that what mandatory minimums do is increase recidivism. They actually make it more likely that a person who gets a mandatory minimum sentence comes back and offends again. How can that be good when we are talking about dealing with young people, in particular?

Half of gang membership in Canada is under the age of 18. When we increase recidivism, we get into a vicious circle that in turn increases crime. That has a more discriminatory impact on more vulnerable groups, notably, in Canada, our aboriginal young people, among whom gang recruitment is higher than it is in other parts of our society.

In my own community of Ottawa South, I deal with community police officers all the time. These are front-line officers, men and women, who are charged with the responsibility of dealing with so-called hot spots. All of us as members of Parliament deal with these in our ridings, particularly in urban spaces.

They tell us that the ticket now, the key, is to get to kids between the ages of 8 and 12. That is the time to get to kids with activities, particularly post-school activities, that keep them on the right track.

Let us talk about that for a second. What are the circumstances that lead kids, young people in particular, to join gangs?

We know it is linked to, for example, neighbourhood crime. We know it is directly linked to poverty levels. We know it is partly about peer pressure and peer influence.

We know it is sometimes about the lack of vigilance by parents, teachers and community members and leaders. We know it has to do with a lack of opportunities for positive after-school recreation programs, for example, or homework clubs. We know it is linked to substance abuse and alcohol use. We know that this is altogether tied into a large challenge.

We think the government should be investing more in activities that engage our kids, rather than forcing mandatory minimums on judges and then downloading to the provinces the responsibility to build more jails. By the way, that is a strategy that was tried in Texas and California. Is it not interesting that the governors of both of those states have now publicly denounced that experiment? In California, the state legislature is now struggling with the weight of the cost of prisons. This is a huge part of California's teetering right now on the verge of bankruptcy.

Liberals believe that we should be investing more in soccer fields and music groups and in making our recreational spaces more available for kids. It is not a bad idea, especially when we are dealing with a childhood obesity epidemic and all kinds of health challenges related to sedentary lifestyles.

We are alarmed by the increase in the number of kids joining gangs. We support the provisions of the bill that actually go a ways in criminalizing the recruitment of kids. However, we just do not understand the government's fixation on mandatory minimums. We know that it is a narrative the government uses for its base, but it flies in the face of all experience. It flies in the face of our community policing. Front-line officers tell us that it is not working. We are scratching our heads and asking why the government wants to spend all this money on incarceration, when we know that every dollar we spend up front saves us $40 afterwards in terms of costs for criminal enforcement, incarceration, parole and beyond.

We think the bill is good in a halfway respect, but unfortunately, it goes the wrong way when it comes to mandatory minimums. As a result, we will not be supporting this bill.

The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by reading some of the speech that I have prepared for today. Then I want to take a moment to give some practical examples of how this would affect youth not only in my community and in the province of Manitoba but in many communities across this country.

Bill C-394 would create a new offence that addresses the practice of recruiting or encouraging persons to join a criminal organization. The person who is recruiting must be doing so in order to enhance the ability of the criminal organization to commit or facilitate the commission of an indictable offence.

Organized crime, to be successful, requires a constant stream of new recruits. These individuals replace others who have either been incarcerated or have perhaps experienced worse outcomes. New members join the ranks of an existing organization so that the group can maintain or expand its criminal enterprises into new territories or new activities.

It is particularly disturbing when young people are targeted. In many instances the job of recruiters is very easy, because they target our most vulnerable young people. This leads me to some examples.

As members know, I have been a police officer for some 19 years with the Winnipeg Police Service, and I intend to go back to the police service. What brought me here to this House was the failure of the previous Liberal government to address the recruitment of our youth by criminal organizations, our youth being exploited into the criminal element.

The Youth Criminal Justice Act was created by the previous Liberal government. It was supposed to address this exploitation of our youth. It was supposed to address the fact that our kids were being dragged into gangs. It did none of that. In fact, it removed denunciation and deterrence from the act itself. It created an environment in which criminal organizations could easily target our kids into gangs. As a result, I as a police officer, and many police officers across this country, experienced direct recruitment of our youth through gangs providing them with incentives.

I know that the Liberal member for Winnipeg North is in the House right now. I really want him to pay attention, because it was in his area that I experienced this kind of recruitment. It was fairly common in Winnipeg following the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which was put forward by the previous Liberal government.

First, what the criminal element will do is target a vulnerable youth who perhaps does not have parental supervision, perhaps is in a low-income family, perhaps has not been able to eat, or perhaps is not going to school. The recruiters target these kids and convince them by incentives to become gang members. They would give them $50 to go into Safeway to steal a tube of toothpaste. They would give them $50 after that to go into a house that an adult had broken into and ask them to steal a tube of toothpaste for $50. Then they would start to ask them to deliver packages for $50. What is in the package? Drugs. Now the child, without knowing it, is a drug dealer. The gang member then discloses that they have this information and threatens the young person to stay in the gang and work for the gang. It is despicable.

This is what the Youth Criminal Justice Act did to the children in my community, and this bill will help us to stop that kind of behaviour. I applaud it 100%. I know police officers across the country will applaud it.

I encourage the members of both opposition parties to please consider supporting this bill. It is absolutely necessary. It will do such wonders for our youth in our communities. It is high time that we address these victims who are unnecessarily being put at risk.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I rise today on Bill C-394, introduced by the member for Brampton—Springdale. To begin with, I would like to congratulate the member on his initiative and for recognizing the fact that the gang problem in Canada is on the rise, which is a major problem that needs addressing. I would like to thank the member for giving us the opportunity to consider solutions to this problem.

To begin with, I want to make it clear that further legislation dealing with the problem of street gangs will not be a cure-all. We need to consider other solutions rather than simply throwing more legislation at the problem.

The NDP considers it important to protect our youth from gangs and organized crime. We believe that this bill is an important and positive tool in order to stem the tide of the street gang phenomenon. That is why we included this important issue in our 2011 election platform. We are in favour of a balanced approach to public safety that relies on both prevention and punishment.

The NDP's priority is to combat gangs by adopting a balanced approach. This approach, which focuses on prevention, will help meet the expectations of Canadians, who obviously want to live and thrive in communities free of violence. We want to see as many effective prevention programs as possible because they help to prevent young people from being recruited into street gangs.

Currently, there are three offences dealing with organized crime. These offences are defined in section 467.11 of the Criminal Code: participation in the activities of a criminal organization; the commission of an offence for a criminal organization; and instructing a person to commit an offence for a criminal organization.

The bill adds a fourth offence: recruiting a person to join a criminal organization for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence. It constitutes an additional legislative tool, which is at the heart of the bill.

Although there are no major problems that prevent us from supporting this bill, I do have some reservations about imposing mandatory minimums. I must remind government members that every time Parliament has attempted to include mandatory minimums in the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court has overturned these mandatory minimums because they do not allow judges to take into consideration mitigating factors that may have come into play in the commission of the crime. I remind members that this may be a major problem. It is my hope that the government will stop imposing mandatory minimums because they are not appropriate.

We must remember that young people have a fundamental need to identify with a group and to belong. If young people do not have this feeling of belonging to their family or school, for example, sometimes they unfortunately turn to gangs in order to find a sense of belonging. Peer pressure, the desire to be protected and the need to identify can therefore influence a young person's decision to join a criminal organization.

Families and children living in poverty and unemployment, or experiencing family problems, are often more vulnerable to recruitment by street gangs. In some urban neighbourhoods, where poverty and violence are everyday facts of life, young people may feel so vulnerable that they decide to join a gang because they believe it is the only way to survive. They may see it as the only available option. Joining a gang may also look to them like an alternative to their current living situation, particularly if they are from an extremely poor environment or if they have been victims of physical or sexual abuse. Stopping gang recruitment is a way of striking at the very foundation of these gangs, which is the recruitment that enables them to continue their unlawful activities.

There are data indicating that almost half the street gang members in Canada are under the age of 18, and 39% of gang members are in the 16 to 18 year age group. Almost half of all street gang members are under 18 years old.

They are also often highly ethnically diverse. Although youth gangs are primarily made up of young men, in some parts of the country, more young women are becoming gang members. As the gangs are a cross-section of many ethnic, geographical, demographic and socio-economic groups, many adolescents are at risk of becoming involved in such gangs or of being influenced by them in future.

In 2008, the statistics showed over 900 gangs totalling more than 7,000 members. Gangs made up of young Canadians are involved in many disturbing criminal activities including assault, drug trafficking, burglary, break and enter, vandalism and, increasingly, violent crimes against individuals.

There is also a disquieting relationship between many youth gangs and organized crime groups, and this increases the inherent dangers of the gang phenomenon in Canada.

Most gangs subject new members to some kind of initiation. This may consist of being beaten for a certain time by the other gang members, or it may be that most new members are required to commit crimes in order to become members of such a criminal gang. The same applies to some female members.

As is the case with most organized groups, female gang members are not really considered equal to male members. Women are more often invisible or less important, until the male members need them to commit a certain crime.

Female gang members usually participate in the same activities as male gang members. However, even though they take many of the same risks, they do not have the same status as their male counterparts. Furthermore, female gang members are often the victims of abuse such as rape and assault committed by male members of the gang. Unfortunately, male gang members can also sexually exploit them.

Gangs and criminal organizations are recruiting more and more young people, and at even younger ages. That is why we need to ferociously attack this phenomenon, in order to protect our youth.

Not only do we need to make it illegal to recruit people into gangs and criminal organizations, but we also need to strengthen and focus our efforts on youth crime prevention. Through such programs, we would be able to identify young people who might be susceptible to recruitment. It is therefore important to break down the radicalization process, so that our young people can thrive without the negative influence of these gangs.

Beyond criminalizing recruitment, we want more resources to be allocated to crime prevention programs, especially those designed for young people. We also want police forces to have enough resources to protect our communities across the country. To do so, we must certainly work together with the provinces, the territories and communities such as the first nations.

Fighting crime has to be done in partnership with all the players in the legal sector and the social sector.

We have constantly asked for an increased investment in front-line police officers. We have also asked for more money for youth crime prevention programs. Thanks to pressure from the NDP, the government has provided funding to these programs. Nonetheless, it has refused to provide funding for front-line municipal police officers. The Conservatives have thereby let down the provinces when it comes to the police officers recruitment fund that is allocated to the provinces to recruit front-line police officers. This is a very useful program that unfortunately will end in 2013.

The Conservatives are trying to show that they are willing to fight organized crime through this bill. However, they are not fully meeting the needs and expectations of Canadians.

In conclusion, I would just like to reiterate the importance of preventive programs. The punitive approach unfortunately has its limitations, and the best way to prevent recruitment into criminal organizations is to combat poverty and all the variables that result in individuals becoming involved in organized crime.

Criminal behaviour is caused by multiple social variables. Those are what we must work to eliminate. That is how we will have the greatest effect in the battle against crime and the recruitment of young people into criminal gangs.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure of speaking in favour of Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment). It is my honour to present a bill that is of particular importance to me and that is also very important for the House of Commons.

This private member's bill, Bill C-394, is relatively straightforward. It has as its focus a practice that would enhance the ability of organized crime groups to engage in criminal activity; that is, the recruitment of members to join criminal organizations. The bill's sponsor, the member for Brampton—Springdale, seems particularly concerned about the recruitment of young persons to join criminal organizations.

In this regard, I strongly support his proposals and I am sure that his amendments will be met with wide support.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Before going into the substance of the proposed amendments, it is important for me to provide some context regarding the state of organized crime in Canada.

According to 2011 estimates by Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, 729 organized crime groups are active in Canada. This number tends to change from year to year. The reasons for this fluctuation include changes in intelligence-collection practices, the relatively fluidity of some of these organized crime groups and law enforcement policing practices that have disrupted the activities of these organizations. Many of these groups are street gangs that are active in the trafficking of illicit commodities. Most notable among these goods is drug trafficking.

However, street gangs are also widely known to be involved in street-level prostitution, theft, robbery, fraud and weapons offences. The wide range of organized crime activity undermines community safety, interferes with legitimate economies, and costs Canadians millions of dollars each year. Furthermore, organized crime groups frequently resort to violence to achieve their criminal objectives, putting the public at risk as a result.

For organized crime groups to be successful, they must constantly ensure that they have enough members to carry on their criminal activities. When people are successfully recruited into a criminal organization, it enhances the threats posed by these groups to society at large. As the members increase, the criminal influence of those gangs or chapters of gangs is increased.

Frequently, these groups, or individuals acting on their behalf, target young people. Organized crime groups may do so because young persons are more vulnerable and can be convinced that joining such groups will bring them money, respect, protection and companionship. They may convince young persons to engage in criminal activity by telling them that even if they get caught, the justice system will be lenient on them because of their age.

Parliamentarians, and indeed all Canadians, should be rightly concerned about this. Bill C-394 proposes to create a new indictable offence that would prohibit anyone, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization, to facilitate or commit an indictable offence, from recruiting, soliciting, encouraging or inviting a person to join a criminal organization. This new offence would be punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment. It also proposes a mandatory minimum penalty of six months' imprisonment when the person recruited is under the age of 18 years.

It is worth noting that this offence mirrors the language of the existing Criminal Code offence of participating in the activities of a criminal organization found at section 467.11. It also has the same maximum penalty. This is appropriate because recruitment is a specific example of participation. In fact, the existing participation offence has been used to address recruitment in the past.

Now, some members in the House might question the need for this stand-alone offence, given what I have just said. These same members may argue that the existing participation offence is adequate and that duplication or overlap in the Criminal Code should be avoided.

In my view, the enactment of a specific offence which explicitly prohibits active recruitment would serve a more than valuable function. It would send an unequivocal message, reflecting Parliament's intent that such conduct must be condemned, in the clearest of terms.

It educates the community and reflects the important principle that the law must not only be clear but must also be clearly understood. There can be no doubt that this offence would put on notice those who would seek to recruit others to join a criminal organization. One of the most important aspects of this new offence is that it would provide police and prosecutors with an additional tool and would allow them to make a determination of which offence best fits the facts of a particular case. Let me be clear. This bill would provide additional tools to law enforcement officers.

In addition to this offence, the bill proposes a number of other amendments. These amendments would ensure that the new offence would be treated the same way as the other criminal organization offences in respect of procedural, evidential and sentencing matters in the Criminal Code. As I am sure all members know, the Criminal Code contains a number of special rules in relation to organized crime. For example, in cases where someone has been charged with a criminal organization offence, there is a reverse onus which requires accused persons to show why their custody pending trial is not required. Another example is that for persons convicted of any of the specific criminal organization offences, any sentence that is imposed on them must be served consecutively to any other sentence for an offence arising out of the same series of events. So the proposed consequential amendments in Bill C-394 would ensure that the Criminal Code is consistent and coherent in its treatment of organized crime investigations and prosecutions. I strongly support these amendments.

Before concluding, I wish to draw attention to a couple of technical concerns that I have identified with this bill and which I expect could be readily addressed through technical amendments without interfering with the objectives of the bill.

The first relates to the way the new offence is characterized. In the bill, the offence is called “recruitment of members by a criminal organization”. While it is certainly true that much of the recruitment would be done by gang members, it is not strictly speaking required. That is, the offence is not limited to recruitment by gang members. This is an important distinction because we do not want an overly restrictive offence. So in order to make it clear to everyone, I would support a technical amendment to change the way this offence is described.

I would also note there appear to be some discrepancies between the way the English and French versions of the bill are drafted. For example, in the English version of the offence the words used are, “...to recruit, solicit, encourage or invite a person to join a criminal organization”. In other words, the recruitment can refer to any criminal organization whereas in the French version the recruitment must be done into the specific criminal organization that will be enhanced. So as currently drafted, the English is broader than the French. Based on my understanding of what this offence is trying to do, as well as looking at the existing criminal organization offences, the French version seems to be more accurate. A technical amendment to address this discrepancy should be made. These are minor changes that I think would strengthen the bill.

I am prepared to debate an amendment that would clarify that intent. I call on all members of the House to support Bill C-394.

I strongly support this bill and look forward to working with the sponsor and all members to move it quickly into law.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while the debate this evening is on Bill C-394 and criminal organization recruitment, it reflects and, indeed, invites initial comment on the overall approach to criminal policy by the Conservative government in general.

In this bill, we see the problems of this generic approach to criminal law, namely, that everything is a matter for the criminal law even if there already exists an offence in the Criminal Code on this issue, that the only way to address these criminal matters is through the prism of punishment and that the best approach to punishment is through the use of mandatory minimums.

Frankly, this is a variance with long-standing principle, policy and an evidence-based approach to criminal justice. The government's preoccupation with this type of legislating is not only somewhat disingenuous but also ineffective, wasteful, prejudicial, constitutionally suspect and, simply put, bad public policy.

I realize that colleagues in this place may be somewhat surprised that I am beginning with this type of approach and perspective. However, I believe that as a chamber, given this whole approach to policy-making, that we must take a step back and gain some perspective on what we are doing.

I know the government is very quick to pounce on these types of critiques and to label those who make them, be it the Liberal Party, others or myself, as being soft on crime. We all have a shared commitment to combatting crime. The issue is how we combat it, whether we are smart and effective on crime or whether we are in a situation where we are simply legislating for the sake of legislating and sending a signal as if we are tough on crime when in fact the very subject matter may already be present in the Criminal Code.

If one looks at the legislation, it proposes to punish anyone who ”recruits, solicits, encourages or invites a person to join a criminal organization”. This offence would become the new section 467.11 of the Criminal Code, but, and this is the important point, enhancing the ability of a criminal organization is already a crime under the Criminal Code.

Section 467.11 of the Criminal Code, the very section to which this bill adds a subsection, clearly states:

Every person who, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization to facilitate or commit an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament, knowingly, by act or omission, participates in or contributes to any activity of the criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence....

I have no problem with legislation that sometimes seeks to make a necessary clarification to the law or to enhance the law, but what is being suggested here is that somehow without this bill there will be no offence with respect to gang recruitment. Yet recruitment previously was one of the issues on the minds of the legislators themselves in this House, as evidenced by the fact that when enacting section 467.11 in 2001, the then-minister of justice, Anne McLellan, said in this place upon the introduction of what is currently in the Criminal Code, in order to reference that this was already anticipated and then implemented as law:

We know that successful recruitment enhances the threat posed to society by criminal organizations. It allows them to grow and to more effectively achieve their harmful criminal objectives. Those who act as recruiters for criminal organizations contribute to these ends both when they recruit for specific crimes and when they recruit simply to expand the organization's human capital.

Thus, the express provisions of the proposed participation offence make it clear that the crown does not, in making its case, need to link the impugned participation, in this case recruitment, to any particular offence. In fact, these words could have been spoken by the introducer of this particular bill because that particular section in the Criminal Code already covers what this bill purports to do, as reflected in the words of the then justice minister at the time. Indeed, this is the current state of the law.

Section 467.11 of the Criminal Code goes on to note that in the prosecution of an offence under subsection (1) it is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that, and it goes through a whole series of factors which, for reasons of time, I will not enter into here. If one looks at the offence, one will see that it already covers that which this bill purports to do.

I do not therefore wish to dwell on some of those technical points of law. Suffice it to say that the behaviour the new offence seeks to criminalize is something already criminal under another provision of the Criminal Code. Whatever act that would give rise to this proposed section would also likely be criminal under another section, such as the offences relating to counselling, aiding, abetting, conspiracy and the like.

As such, Bill C-394 is both duplicative and arguably duplicitous as well, duplicative in that it essentially repeats what is already in the Criminal Code and somewhat duplicitous in that it is being presented as if this were our only option with respect to combatting gang recruitment and as if there were no present offence that deals with this issue before us, and that those who will oppose this piece of legislation are again somehow soft on crime or do not care about street gangs and the like.

As I mentioned in my introduction, Conservative crime policy is regrettably all about punishment, yet we should be seeking to prevent young people from joining gangs to begin with. This involves an understanding and appreciation of the serious initiatives that need to be taken with respect to education, social services and the like, in order to allow people to stay in school for as long as they can to provide them with employment opportunities, so that young people are shown that there are alternatives to gang life.

Yet this would involve, and this is the core of my remarks here this evening, addressing the underlying causes and concerns relating to gang crime: housing, poverty, income inequality, employment, minority inclusion and access to education, and an understanding of why young people join gangs.

There are no young people in Canada contemplating gang life because they believe there is no offence against it or their recruitment in the Criminal Code.

There are plenty of offences in the Criminal Code, an ever-expanding list that has grown tremendously with the adoption of Bill C-10, and yet these do very little to address the root causes and concerns of crime. In fact, many of them will only lead to an increase in crime.

Here I am speaking in particular of mandatory minimum penalties, something which Bill C-394 seeks to add to the Criminal Code in the matter of gang recruitment. While I have spoken many times in the House on this point, once again one finds an ignoring or marginalizing of the evidence with respect to the fallout of mandatory minimums.

Simply put, not only do we know that mandatory minimums do not deter crime, rather they tend to increase crime both within prisons, which become schools for crime, and outside prisons. They do not deter crime. This is not my conclusion. This is a conclusion reached by studies the world over and even our own justice department here in Canada.

They remove necessary prosecutorial and judicial discretion, leading to pleas for lesser offences or forcing trials where there may have been none. This clogs the courts. The Canadian Bar Association has warned us that with the addition of more mandatory minimums, we may end up in a situation where more accused are set free contrary to the intention and objectives of the government's legislation to begin with simply because their charter right to a fair trial within a reasonable period of time has been violated.

Moreover, mandatory minimums will lead to further overcrowding in prisons, yet prisons in this country are already overcrowded. We have seen in U.S. court judgments that overcrowding amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

Lastly, though perhaps most important, such sentences also invite constitutional critiques and have been struck down, as we saw recently in the Ontario courts, for being cruel and unusual, arbitrary, disproportionate, outrageous and intolerable.

While I do not have time to elaborate further, I would like to conclude by simply reminding members that criminal law should be as much about prevention as it should be about punishment. Our approach to social evils should be as much to ensure that individuals and groups have a viable way of avoiding that which leads them into gang recruitment through all the causes and concerns that I addressed earlier in this regard.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset, I can say that the NDP will vote in favour of Bill C-394 at second reading, but that does not mean we are signing a blank cheque. We will study Bill C-394 at length in committee with the help of expert witnesses, and we will do a comprehensive clause-by-clause review in committee and make any necessary amendments.

I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment). This private member's bill amends the Criminal Code in order to create a new offence related to organized crime: criminal organization recruitment.

There is currently a set of rules in the Criminal Code that prohibit criminal organizations: participation in activities of a criminal organization, commission of an offence for a criminal organization and instructing a person to commit an offence for a criminal organization. The bill being debated in the House today seeks to add a fourth offence to the Criminal Code: the recruitment of an individual to join a criminal organization, as defined by the Criminal Code, for the purpose of enhancing the criminal organization's ability to facilitate or commit a criminal offence.

With this bill, my hon. colleague hopes to put the brakes on recruitment by gangs. Gangs are criminal organizations that have operated in a number of Canadian provinces for decades. They exist in Quebec, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. They are flourishing and must be condemned in no uncertain terms.

The configuration of gangs is changing, and more and more young people are joining these criminal groups. Gangs target young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds who have family problems. Gangs also target girls and have been observed recruiting in prisons. Consequently, the make-up of gangs can vary. Therefore, I congratulate my hon. colleague for introducing this bill, which is a first step in solving the problem of gangs.

Public safety is a priority for the official opposition, and we always take a great interest in analyzing bills that will amend the Criminal Code. However, although I acknowledge the legitimacy of the bill sponsored by my hon. colleague, I must admit that I find the penalty for this new offence to be inappropriate.

The bill sets out a five-year maximum sentence and a six-month mandatory minimum sentence for recruitment of a minor. The very principle of a mandatory minimum is open to criticism from a legal perspective because it deprives the judge of discretionary power, which is a basic tenet of criminal law. The penalty set out in this bill would, once again, encroach on the judge's sentencing powers.

Enhancing the legal arsenal for gang suppression is important, but it is not enough to solve the gang problem and minimize their impact on society. Prevention and suppression always go hand in hand, and we support programs designed to help young people in cities with a gang presence so that our society can enable everyone to develop in a positive way.

I think we should support work done in collaboration with various stakeholders to curb this situation. By way of explanation, I would like to quote Louis Lacroix, the project manager at the Centre of Expertise on Juvenile Crime and Behavioural Disorders and coordinator of the Programme de suivi intensif de Montréal:

Each of us was doing good work in our individual areas of expertise, but no one was successfully addressing the street gang problem. American studies show that coordinated approaches in the community are more successful than when we all work in isolation.

Various projects were therefore created in a number of provinces and the following stakeholders participated: the federal government through the National Crime Prevention Centre, schools, associations, the music industry, foundations, banks, municipalities, the legal community, correctional services and the police. It is important to put forward these initiatives, and it is up to the government to promote them.

It is also essential to be able to give front-line police officers financial and human resources. However, it seems that the current government has failed in this responsibility and has not taken into account the suggestions made by professionals who deal with gangs every day. This time, I would like to cite the comparative report on types of intervention used for youth at risk of joining a street gang, released in 2011.

[A] meeting of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or the CACP, in 2009 produced the recommendation that a national anti-gang strategy be developed. The national strategy would ensure the “constant allocation of police resources” to deal effectively with the phenomenon....To date, this strategy has yet to be adopted.

One thing this shows is that the present government is refusing to fund municipal front-line officers, and this shows a glaring lack of vision on the part of the government when it comes to public safety.

The Conservatives may be showing the will to combat criminal organizations, including by making it an offence to recruit people into gangs, but they are not completely meeting the needs and expectations of our fellow Canadians.

In January 2011, the Conservatives announced a dramatic cut to the Youth Gang Prevention Fund. At the time, the NDP responded forcefully, pointing out the significant benefits of the prevention programs implemented under that fund. Thanks to the NDP, the Conservative government backpedalled a few months later and announced that the funding allocated to the program would now be permanent.

The Conservatives have also disappointed the provinces in the case of the allocation of funding under what was called the Police Officers Recruitment Fund for the provinces to recruit front-line police officers. The fund was created in 2008 and will end in 2013. Once again, the Conservatives have failed to keep their promise.

Canadians expect the members of this House to take reasonable measures in order to meet their expectations: to be able to live in crime-free, violence-free communities. This bill is one solution to the problem of individuals being recruited by gangs, but it is not the only solution. An approach that strikes a balance between punishment and prevention must always take precedence when it comes to public safety, and aiming for that balance is the way to ensure that Canadian society is more harmonious.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

moved that Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to have this opportunity to share with the House the important measures introduced in Bill C-394, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment). The focal point of Bill C-394 is to protect Canadians, especially our youth, by making the act of criminal organization recruitment, or in other words gang recruitment, an offence under Canadian law.

All of us can agree that our youth are our future. This is a statement that holds no partisan or political undertone. Each one of us in the House and every Canadian would agree that our youth will define the trajectory of the country and that trajectory will be determined by the types of opportunities our youth are given.

Young Canadians today have a sense of vulnerability about them. There are challenges that all youth face. My three young children constantly remind me, as a parent, how important it is to provide for their safety and to protect them from any real or imagined dangers. Like every parent, I want the best for my children. I want them to be given every opportunity to succeed. To do this, I strive to create a safe environment in which they are free to grow and explore their potential.

Unfortunately, not all kids or teenagers get to experience the life they deserve. Sometimes the pressures to fit in or join a certain group are just too overwhelming, leaving youth vulnerable to those who might exploit their desire to belong. In a 2008 publication, the RCMP found that street gangs in Canada are increasingly aggressive with their recruitment tactics. In a disturbing trend, these criminal organizations are targeting youth under the age of 12 and as young as 8 years old.

These ruthless gangs pursue our vulnerable youth for several reasons. They know that those falling within this age range cannot be formally charged with a criminal offence. They also know that our youth can be easily pressured to participate in a variety of criminal activities. Our innocent and most vulnerable citizens are being manipulated, coerced and at times forced to embark on a life that no Canadian should ever experience. Gangs exploit our children by forcing them to participate in criminal activities such as drug dealing, robbery, theft and prostitution.

When I had the opportunity to speak with current and ex-gang members who led recruitment initiatives, they told me of a world that knew no boundaries. For instance, gang members will use drug addiction to manipulate potential recruits to take part in criminal activities that support the gang. This means that children, young kids who should have been playing soccer in school yards, are carrying weapons, drugs and money. In the eyes of gangs, these youth are dispensable and easily controlled.

It is worrisome and heartbreaking that Canada's most violent criminal organizations actively recruit youth and teenagers. How can we as a nation sit by and watch this happen?

I remember vividly what the director of the Regina Anti-Gang Services told me as we sat side by side in a small room among hardened gang members seeking to exit that lifestyle. She told me that, once recruited, these innocent children and teenagers were lost to the streets of the city forever. Promising young lives would vanish into the criminal culture forever. What makes this lifestyle so deadly is that leaving a gang is next to impossible.

As I mentioned earlier, I had a chance to speak with several former and current gang members. I sat beside a young man, a mere 19 years old, who had been a gang member for more than seven years. When I looked at him, I saw a kid. However, as we got deeper into a discussion about his past, there was nothing in his life that resembled that of a youth. He was recruited into a gang at a very young age. Instead of school, friends, family and sports, he was robbing drug dealers, attacking rival gang members and selling drugs on the streets.

This was a kid who excelled in a criminal organization because that was the only life he knew. I cannot help but picture his work ethics allowing him to lead an extraordinarily successful law-abiding life. Now he is battling a drug addiction and because he is seeking to exit the gang, he constantly looks over his shoulder fearing for his life. He told me that no matter what one does, one is never really out of the gang.

The people he recruited into the gang have experienced the same thing as he did. He looked me in the eye and asked, “By recruiting others into the gang, how many lives did I ruin? How many families did I hurt? And how many people have experienced pain at my hands?” What type of life is that for a young person?

We see lives being shattered by gangs, families destroyed and our community safety placed in jeopardy. As a father, I fear the presence and power that a gang wields over a community and its most vulnerable citizens. As a member of Parliament, I know there is more that we can do.

In 2006 CSIS estimated that the number of street gang members under the age of 30 was approximately 11,000. The report cautioned that the number would continue to grow rapidly over the coming years.

In the Peel region, which my family and I call home, the number of gangs has exploded in the last few years. In 2003 there were 39. Today there are well over 110 street gangs within our neighbourhoods. This means that more people live in fear, more young people are targeted and more violence is used.

Gang members in Canada have a blatant disregard for the safety and well-being of those around them. For instance, in some communities, families are afraid to leave their home or let their children play outside. Gangs also pose a significant risk for law enforcement officers. The increase in gang recruitment has far-reaching and systemic effects on our country as a whole. Our safety, security and well-being are placed in jeopardy.

The purpose of Bill C-394 is twofold.

First and foremost, we are seeking to further protect our youth and communities by criminalizing the act of gang recruitment. Far too many communities in Canada are facing a gang problem. It is vitally important that we maintain the security and safety of our neighbourhoods, streets and families.

By tackling gang recruitment, we can help reduce the number of innocent and vulnerable citizens who would otherwise be lost in this dead-end lifestyle forever. It is about protecting our children, neighbourhood and future. Criminal organizations use fear, intimidation and violence to advance their objective and grow within a community. This behaviour can no longer be tolerated.

Second, Bill C-394 is designed to provide law enforcement officers with additional tools to address gang recruitment. I had the opportunity to meet with numerous stakeholders across Canada to discuss this issue. The valuable insight we gained was used in the development of the bill. We spoke with several law enforcement officers who praised the bill's direction, scope, focus and resourcefulness.

The 2002 Canadian Police Survey on Youth Gangs, conducted under contract to the Solicitor General of Canada, was the first of its kind in the country. This landmark study identified some startling figures. Of 264 Canadian police services surveyed, 57% believed that the youth gang problem was getting worse. Most concerning was the fact that 44% reported that youth gang members had established a relationship with larger organized crime groups.

The common theme that we witnessed while meeting with law enforcement officers was that the more tools they had to fight what they called the “war on gangs”, the better the outcome could be. Bill C-394 has taken that request and seeks to augment current efforts.

Youth gang membership has and will continue to grow in the country if we sit back and do nothing.

Restorative and preventive approaches complement other justice responses to criminal activity, but they cannot replace them. Bill C-394 is focused on addressing the criminal actions that allow a gang to proliferate, strengthen and grow within our communities. We are tackling the criminal conduct that is destroying our youth's lives and placing others in jeopardy on a daily basis.

With this being said, I am strongly committed to supporting a balanced approach to gang recruitment by advancing preventive and education-based programs across this country. We are focusing on bolstering our law enforcement, legal and justice system to respond to the increasingly aggressive gang recruitment strategies that are ongoing.

Bill C-394 would allow our justice system to appropriately hold those who would recruit individuals into a criminal organization accountable for their devastating actions. By doing so, we will be able to take these dangerous criminals off our streets for good. This not only maintains the safety and security of our communities, but it offers the opportunity to severely inhibit a criminal organization's growth.

When I spoke with the president and CEO of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Winnipeg, he told me a story that exemplified the need for this proposed legislation. At one of their inner-city club chapters, gang members will wait under the parking garage directly behind the building. Their sole purpose for being there is to engage those leaving the Boys and Girls Club in hopes of recruiting them into their gang, a targeted strategy that is not a coincidence.

This example highlights the reality that our youth in our communities face. Education and prevention programs are only a part of our response. We need to provide our justice system with the ability to respond through legal action.

Imagine for a moment if these children, youth and teenagers were empowered to report those trying to recruit them. Imagine if our community members knew that something could be done about gang recruiters who operated in their neighbourhood. It would empower communities to take action.

Today, we have an opportunity not just as members of Parliament, but as Canadians, to come together and make a difference in our neighbourhoods. I urge each member to view the bill for what it is: an important new tool in our criminal justice system that will benefit families, communities and future generations.

It is time that we take back our streets from criminal organizations that are increasingly tightening their grip on our freedoms, safety and security. It is time we take a stand so every child, teenager and adult can experience the life that they deserve to live.

Justice

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned about crime. They gave our government a strong mandate to keep our streets and communities safe. Gang activity and recruitment is a growing problem. Youth are often targeted by criminal organizations to join their ranks. This is one reason that I introduced Bill C-394, the criminal organization recruitment act. The legislation would send a strong signal that seeking to recruit youth into organized crime gangs is a serious offence that deserves tough sentences.

Could the Minister of Justice please inform the House about the government's position on my legislation?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Are there questions or comments?

All in favour?

Now we have Bill C-394.

Criminal Code

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce my private member's bill entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment). The bill aims to protect the increasing number of innocent and vulnerable youth who are actively targeted and recruited by criminal organizations. The bill would provide the necessary tools for law enforcement officials and our justice system to hold these criminals accountable for their actions and protect our youth.

I look forward to having a debate on the bill in the House in the very near future.

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