Justice Committee on May 1st, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Ms. Findlay.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Richards, for being here today and bringing this forward.

As a member from British Columbia, and one who has relatives in law enforcement there who were involved in trying to stem that riot that night, I am keenly aware of how dangerous things became that night. I was here in Ottawa watching the television and was concerned that my relatives who are police officers were going to be harmed. I don't think anybody who was watching that—or who was in the midst of it—would have seen it as anything but a riot and not a peaceful protest. I am also aware since that time of the difficulties of identification that Vancouver is facing. I can only assume that's true in other cities that have been touched by this.

My colleague opposite was talking about going from a peaceful protest to a riot. I assume from your remarks you have talked to a number of law enforcement people. It seems to me this is something they have to call frequently when matters get out of hand, where something may start peacefully—often, they do start peacefully—and then turn into a riot. Did you find any difficulty with what they were saying to you in terms of when they distinguish one from the other?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Probably most helpful here are the sections of the code. They outline the definitions of what an unlawful assembly is and what a riot is. If you'll just bear with me, I'll read directly from that. I think that really tells us exactly what the difference is, and I think it clearly identifies the problem here.

Subsection 63(1) of the Criminal Code defines an unlawful assembly, and that is defined as:

An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they (a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or (b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

In section 64, it defines what then becomes a riot, and that is “an unlawful assembly that has begun to disturb the peace tumultuously”.

By the very definitions in these sections, an unlawful assembly or a riot occurs when citizens on the streets of their own city have reasonable grounds to be afraid. It's defined by fear, by being afraid that the actions of others will harm them, their businesses, or their properties. That's obviously of concern to any law-abiding individual and is something we understand we have to ensure we protect the public from.

That is the kind of situation we're talking about that this bill would deal with.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

I assume that you specifically use the word “riot” in your proposed bill for the reason that it is well defined, both in the Criminal Code and in the common law. Is that correct?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

That's correct, exactly. It is intended to deal with those kinds of situations where any kind of public gathering has become an unlawful assembly or a riot, because that's when the public has reason to be afraid and when police need the ability to protect public safety.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

I know that you've talked about speaking with law enforcement. Have you also talked with business owners who have been affected by this kind of behaviour, and can you give us an idea of what their concerns are?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Absolutely. I've spoken with business owners in a number of cities. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association and also the Building Owners and Managers Association in B.C. have both provided unanimous resolutions from their membership in support of this bill. There is very strong support for this bill in those associations in Vancouver that represent the businesses in the areas that were affected.

I've also spoken with business owners and downtown business associations in Toronto. A number of them in the area were affected by the riot as well. They have also expressed very strong support for the bill, and the reason they have is that they understand it will protect their businesses from the kinds of damage and looting, and their employees from the kinds of trauma, that they experienced during the riots in their cities.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Delta—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Scott.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Richards, for your presentation and the initiative.

The intent is certainly laudable, but we do have concerns, as you've already heard. I think it's important to reiterate that this is not just with respect to disguise or masking in riot situations. It would also apply when there is unlawful assembly.

You've made that clear, but I want to make sure that everybody understands that the threshold for what constitutes an unlawful assembly is much lower than the threshold for a riot. If somebody ends up still being around, masked, when something at as low a threshold as an unlawful assembly is going on, that's of even greater concern, from my perspective, from the civil liberties side. I just want to put that on record.

I spoke to some police officers who were involved in the policing in Toronto during the G-20. What they wanted to emphasize was the transition issue. It's all well and good for us to define what constitutes an unlawful assembly or a riot. You've done that well. It's in the code. It's how everybody on site knows that, at a certain point in time, a peaceful demonstration has become either a riot or an unlawful assembly.

They can be large. You can be in one part of a crowd and not know what's going on in another part of the crowd. You could end up being legitimately there for either protest reasons or other reasons, with some kind of facial covering, and not even know that you're now automatically committing an illegal act.

If this provision goes forward, it needs to be amended to include a very clear provision on a reasonable opportunity to disperse after clear notice from the police. Have you given any thought at all to whether we need something along those lines? There is police practice, but it's not written into the Criminal Code.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you. It's a great question, and I appreciate it.

I want to point out again.... I won't read the entire definition of “unlawful assembly” from the Criminal Code—

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

It's the notice issue.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

—but the idea behind it is that we're in a situation now where, on reasonable grounds, people have reason to fear being in the neighbourhood. I guess what I would point to is that individuals who have come to a legitimate public gathering of any type, whether it be a demonstration or, as we saw in Vancouver, a gathering of fans of a hockey game.... Whatever it might be, if they've come to a public gathering where there has been activity to the degree that people fear being in the neighbourhood, individuals who are there for legitimate, peaceful reasons would experience that fear themselves.

We see individuals who are innocent bystanders being assaulted in these kinds of instances. Generally, the kind of person who is there for legitimate peaceful reasons is looking to depart the situation, to leave the area—

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

But that's my issue, Mr. Richards. If I could—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

That's the intention here: to deal with the people who are looking to cause the trouble, the people who have come prepared and are looking to cause trouble. With this bill, they're the individuals we're looking to deal with.

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

But there's nothing about the phrasing of the bill that actually goes to those kinds of people and that kind of intentionality. It's a much broader sweep. It approaches almost a strict liability offence if people actually do not know that what they're in the middle of has become illegal.

So my concern is to make sure the transition is clearly signalled in a way that's fair to people, to allow them to have a chance to remove themselves from the situation, and nothing you've said tells me that this is something you would entertain as an amendment. Would you entertain that?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Well, I'm always open to hearing suggestions and ideas, and certainly amendments or suggestions are welcome, but I will say that I believe the bill as it exists certainly does provide the ability.... When we're dealing with these kinds of situations where rocks are being thrown through windows, police cars are being set on fire, and innocent individuals are being assaulted, these are not the kinds of situations that a law-abiding citizen generally is looking to be a part of.

In those kinds of situations, police are looking to ensure public safety. They're going to be looking to deal with the people.... As you indicated, they have practices they follow. They're looking to deal with the individuals who are looking to damage property and to assault individuals.

These are the individuals police are trying to deal with in this kind of situation, so I really strongly believe that the bill as it's designed will be, without question in my mind, one that will be applied to individuals who are looking to cause trouble, not the individuals who would be in an area...those individuals are looking to flee an area like that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Richards, for your presentation today. I think you've been really responding to the questions that have been asked of you in an excellent, detailed, and logical way and I very much appreciate that.

I just want to preface my remarks by saying that while I am the first one to defend the right of anyone to wear clothing appropriate to circumstances and according to their beliefs, I don't have any patience for anyone who shows up masked or disguised to any event where it's clear there is illegal conduct going on.

If you are in the midst of an unlawful assembly or a riot, and people are running around with black masks on and doing illegal things, it just does not make sense to me to believe that anyone with an ounce of respect for the law—or intelligence—would disguise themselves so they couldn't be photographed with no other ulterior purpose, so I just don't buy that.

I was interested in your remarks about what happened in Vancouver. Certainly, the fact that there were 15,000 criminal acts identified—I hadn't realized—and that the police were only able to charge 85 people I think is very striking. Many people were I think unjustly and unduly critical of the police because of the time and care they took in their investigation. I know much was written about that and the fact that it took time.

I'd like to ask you this. If your bill had been in place, can you give me some specifics or talk about how it would have helped the police in bringing to justice the perpetrators of these crimes in Vancouver during that riot?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

That's a very great question. It's one that I've had officers point out to me in the different cities I visited where they've dealt with these kinds of situations.

What they tell me very clearly is that, in these kinds of situations, there's an element of people—and these are the people who we're looking to deal with in this bill—who are looking to cause trouble. They come to a public gathering knowing that there will be some cover for them to engage in the kinds of criminal acts they're looking to engage in, and they come prepared with a complete tool kit. Certainly you can find sites on the Internet that coach people on how to do this kind of activity. They'll come prepared with the kit, including the disguise. There may be, as I said earlier, marbles to toss under the legs of police horses. There may be bricks or other objects that they'll throw at police, hammers they'll use to break the store windows, and other kinds of tools that they will use.

Police will witness the individuals with their knapsacks. They'll see them putting on disguises. They'll see them with the tools. Then they'll witness these kinds of activities taking place. They'll witness individuals leaving the scene and removing their disguises as they go. If they know that this kind of criminal activity has taken place, they know that likely these individuals were involved in it, but they're not able to actually identify the individuals who committed specific acts.

You specifically mentioned the Vancouver incident. They have video evidence and photographic evidence where they can clearly see these kinds of activities taking place, and they're done by individuals who are disguised, so they're not able to actually lay charges.

I think it comes back again to the police being able to protect public safety, because they've declared the situation to be an unlawful assembly, or they've declared it to be riot. They know that this activity is happening, or is about to happen, and will likely intensify. They can deal with individuals who they see are very clearly gearing up to engage in that kind of trouble, and hopefully what that will do then, of course, is protect the safety of the public and prevent damages to property, prevent damages to businesses, and prevent assaults on individuals by deterring it from ever happening, because these people will think twice about disguising themselves.

That's the first and foremost hope. So that will be the main thing, and then, secondly, it allows the police the opportunity to hopefully be able to lay more charges on those who are involved, because they're actually able to identify them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Please go ahead, Mr. Jacob.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The offences created by Bill C-309 would apply when someone wears a mask or other disguise to hide his or her identity.

How do you think we could determine whether that's really what the person intended?

Furthermore, what would the situation be for people who cover their face for other reasons, such as religious or health reasons?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Part of your question goes back to the question that Mr. Cotler asked earlier. I'll address that part first.

The bill does provide for lawful excuse. Lawful excuse would apply in the situations you identified. If someone requires a head covering for religious purposes, if someone has a legitimate need to wear medical bandages, which in some way obscures the person's face, those kinds of situations, I think, would certainly apply and could be considered lawful excuse.

With respect to the first part of your question, we're talking about situations where, as I indicated, the Criminal Code defines very clearly that people have reasonable grounds to fear that the peace is going to be disturbed tumultuously, which essentially means they are now afraid to be on the streets of their own city.

If we're talking about a lawful public gathering, often these kinds of events can stem from a lawful public gathering of some type, where individuals have infiltrated a lawful public gathering. Sometimes a very small minority of the group is looking to cause trouble and uses the situation to disturb the peace. Individuals who are there for legitimate peaceful reasons are also going to be afraid and will be looking to flee the area, because they could become victims themselves.

The intention of the bill is hopefully to strengthen the ability to legitimately gather, whether it be for a demonstration or other public gatherings, because it protects the individuals who are gathering for those kinds of purposes. It protects their right to do that. In protecting others, it ensures public safety by protecting individuals who would be assaulted in those kinds of situations and by protecting businesses, which often face the majority of the damage in these situations, whether it be store windows being broken, looting taking place, or stealing of their merchandise. Also, with respect to public property, it protects the taxpayers. Police cars are often torched in these kinds of situations and other public property is damaged.

It protects the public from this kind of criminality. With respect to individuals who are looking to legitimately gather, it protects them from a criminal element that would look to infiltrate those kinds of situations.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do I still have some time left?

You didn't completely answer the question. How could we determine if that was truly the person's intent?

Furthermore, if a person wears a gas mask during a lawful demonstration, should a riot break out and tear gas be launched, would that person be subject to the new offences?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

This is only intended to apply in a situation where we have the definition of it being an unlawful assembly or a riot. When an individual comes to a legitimate peaceful gathering—regardless of any type of facial covering, mask, or disguise that the person would choose to wear to a peaceful legitimate gathering—those provisions would not apply in that instance. They would apply in instances where there is an unlawful assembly or a riot. That's the only situation in which it would apply. It's meant as a tool to ensure public safety when situations like that occur, not at any kind of legitimate peaceful gathering.