Justice Committee on March 30th, 2009

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Just a second. I will not do what happened even in this Parliament. We introduced five pieces of legislation. Some of them had huge and widespread support, protecting 14- and 15-year-olds from adult sexual predators, and not one single thing got passed.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

You prorogued.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

So we put them all together in the fall, a little over a year ago. I want to see them get passed. So on credit for time served, get that passed. Get tough on drugs and gangs, and I can promise you that you'll have more legislation. When I'm prepared to announce that new legislation, you'll be one of the first to hear.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Minister, the last I remember, it was your leader who prorogued Parliament. We didn't prorogue Parliament, so let's not go back as to who did what to whom and when. Answer the question today. When are you going to move on this very important request from British Columbia? Why wouldn't you tell a parliamentary committee--

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I have a question for you: when are you going to pass this legislation? Get this legislation passed and then you will see new legislation coming from this government.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I'm not even asking a question about this legislation--

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

That's what you'll see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

That's enough. I want to remind members that there is a general rule of relevancy. Today we're dealing with Bill C-14. The bill before us deals with organized crime.

Mr. Dosanjh, I've given you a fair degree of leeway to ask questions that are perhaps outside the bill. But let's remember, folks, that we're all working together to try to make this country safer. Let's keep the partisanship to a minimum, as much as we can.

Mr. Murphy.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think that actually it's sort of a pre-ruling, but if you look at the preamble of the bill, you'll see that it talks about tackling organized crime. It's perfectly within the purview of the members, as it has been for the three years that I've been here, to ask the minister what other measures he has to tackle organized crime. If it were about driving while impaired offences, you might have a point, but we're going to ask questions about organized crime and how to fight it, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I understand that, Mr. Murphy, and you understand we're doing a very comprehensive study on organized crime. The minister is here to address a specific bill that was tabled in the House of Commons to address a very specific aspect of organized crime. And as I said, Mr. Murphy, I did give Mr. Dosanjh a great deal of leeway.

I want there to be an open, forthright discussion about the issues, but let's make sure we keep the relations here civil, because we're trying to achieve a result, which is to make Canadians safer. I'm going to leave it at that.

Mr. Dosanjh.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

You've taken two minutes of my time. May I go on?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No, actually you were at the end of your time.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Because you took it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No, I didn't. You were already at the end of your time.

Monsieur Ménard, you have seven minutes.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to welcome the minister and his colleagues. I hope that the atmosphere here will remain cordial and friendly, as usual.

As you know, the Bloc Québécois is an extremely reasonable and enlightened party with regard to establishing what we need to best fight organized crime. We support this bill and obviously we hope that it will be adopted as quickly as possible. Of course, this does not mean that we will not be hearing from witnesses.

At present, the Criminal Code contains provisions that, if I am not mistaken, ensure that we can tie an individual with characteristics corresponding to those set out in section 467 of the Criminal Code to a criminal organization. Am I wrong in saying that such individuals, if they commit murder, will automatically be deemed guilty of first degree murder and will face 25 years in prison, with no possibility of parole? How is first-degree murder changing... What is really new in this bill? I would remind you that we do support the bill, but I want to understand what is new here.

Also, I would like to know whether your department has a table that it could provide to us concerning street gangs, criminal organizations. Is your department looking at these issues or would it be your colleague at the Department of Public Safety who would have that information?

Let's start with those two questions. I have two more to ask you after that.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

There is some shared responsibility, of course, with Public Safety. In fact, much of the whole question of lawful access is within the purview of Public Safety as well, but we certainly work together.

When you ask what is new for the person—and we're talking about people who have committed murder—I've been asked that question just recently. Perhaps Mr. Bartlett may want to add something to that. They're asking what is the difference? Murder is murder. How is it improved if the guy is going to be in for 25 years as opposed to 10 or 15, which would be possible under something other than first degree murder?

I say I know for sure there will be a lot fewer victims out there for that last 10 or 15 years that individual is being detained if he or she is a part of a gang-related activity and they have committed a murder.

Again, I appreciate the comments, Monsieur Ménard, and Mr. Bartlett has asked to make an intervention on that as well.

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

Monsieur Ménard, there is no provision in the Criminal Code currently that makes any murder related to gang activity first degree. If the murder is planned and deliberate, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with a criminal organization, then it is of course first degree.

There's also a provision that makes it a first degree murder if the murder occurs while the person is in the course of committing an explosives offence for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization.

I know you would be familiar with that provision, which followed the death of the 12-year-old boy in Quebec in the course of the Rock Machine and Hells Angels war. This would expand that provision quite thoroughly, and it would do it in two ways. It would make it automatically first degree murder if the murder is committed for the benefit of a criminal organization. Many of those will be planned and deliberate, and if the evidence is there that they're planned and deliberate, then they would already be first degree. But some of them may not be, and the evidence of the planning and deliberation may not be there. More importantly perhaps, though, in other offences that are being committed for the benefit of a criminal organization, where a murder occurs, the murder will probably more commonly be spontaneous. In those circumstances the current law would restrict that only to an explosives offence. This will mean that if they're in the course of committing any indictable offence, then—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Okay, I understand. You have answered my question. It is the element of premeditation that will no longer automatically need to be present, for someone to be found guilty of murder in the first degree.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I want to say one other thing.

You asked for some statistics, Monsieur Ménard, with respect to gangland activity. I can leave that with you here. We have that breakdown here. You were asking for that in the second part of your question.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

The committee looked at the issue of drive-by shootings a year and a half ago, after I tabled the motion on organized crime. For example, if someone committed a drive-by shooting in Montreal, at the time, it would have been difficult to prove that that person had ties to organized crime, based on the criteria set out in section 467.

How did you resolve that difficulty? Does the wording of the offence in the bill allow this obstacle to be removed?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

The wording is different in that it is now specific. The problem with the existing legislation is that it doesn't require specific intent against the particular individual. A person who is involved in drive-by shootings may be trying to intimidate the public or members of a gang. You find that individuals get killed as innocent bystanders, and nobody can be shown to have formed a specific intent to go after these individuals. In a sense, we are drafting a piece of legislation that has specific reference to this type of activity. For instance, an individual could try to shoot a specific person on the street corner, but if another person was killed it would be difficult to prove the formation of intent against the other person. This covers that. It provides for a general intent.

Is there anything you would like to add to that, Mr. Bartlett?

[William Bartlett]

Regardless of whether it can be shown that a drive-by shooting is connected to a criminal organization, this proposed offence would make it a mandatory minimum of four years in jail if you can show that the shooter fired a gun with reason to believe that he was running the risk of killing somebody. They may be shooting at somebody in particular, or they may be shooting wildly, but you will have an offence that will provide a four-year mandatory minimum sentence. That will go up to five years if you can prove that it was connected with a criminal organization.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Is that different from human negligence?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, you are at the end of your time.

Mr. Comartin.

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

Thank you for being here, Minister.

Do we know how many additional first-degree murder charges, based on past practice during the last few years, will be laid with this provision?