Debates of March 12th, 2009

Criminal Code

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, at first glance, I noticed two things about this new bill. It seems to me that several of the offences it would create are already in the Criminal Code. This bill covers more specific ways of committing crimes that are already prohibited. I may be making the same point.

There is something else of concern to those who think that minimum sentences are effective. Does he remember when there was a minimum sentence for importing marijuana, and what happened because of that?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member is right. I remember when I was in my first criminal law course, one of my professors asked us what the Criminal Code called for, and may still call for, for residential burglary. There were about thirty students in the class, each more enthusiastic than the last. We thought it might be six months, a year or two years, but in fact, the sentence could be as long as life in prison. My colleague is therefore right in saying that minimum sentences are not effective.

Second, my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is right in stating that many Criminal Code provisions fall under the generic heading of criminal negligence. Right now, there are provisions in the Criminal Code—added in 1997—that cover assault on a peace officer. This bill might not be quite as innovative as one might think. However, it is an attempt to address an urgent matter, and we are ready to give it serious consideration in committee.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I would like to ask him a very simple question. He has followed the Conservative government very closely for the past three-and-a-half years. Would he be able to help us understand how the government uses the procedure known as evidence based decision making? Is the evidence presented to defend the government's position or should we be hearing more?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his completely non-partisan question. I thank him for that focus. I agree with my colleague that it has happened in the past, and it is our job to remember, that some bills have been introduced in this House when scientific evidence was not always on-side with developing public policy.

We were talking about mandatory minimum sentences earlier. If my colleague who handles the human resources file were here, he would obviously criticize the fact that there is still a waiting period for the unemployed while the evidence shows that, in the current economic climate, eliminating it would be the best solution for everyone. The truth is that this government does not always agree with what we would call a certain scientific truth or, above all, practicality.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his usual eloquence. He delights us with his comments, which are always relevant.

I would like him to give us some more information about the fact that in Quebec we lean more towards social reintegration and transforming people than towards repression. Could he enlighten us a bit more on that?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague refers to the youth criminal justice system. What clearly synthesizes the policy of the government, or governments—since neither the Liberals nor the PQ have strayed far from this policy—is the right measure at the right time. We feel that if a youth is caught in time, has a social network and broad range of programs to back him up, this can yield results that are far more profitable than incarceration, which certain parties in this House are a bit too fond of.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber for a short question.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague has a long-standing concern about organized crime. I would like to know what he thinks about the display of membership in organized crime. We know that this is a problem; the mere fact of wearing the colours of a street gang or a group known to be linked to organized crime can intimidate people. I would like to know his thoughts on this and whether he has any suggestions about it to propose to us.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I also thank him in advance for meeting with the Canadian Arab Federation.

This is a very important question. For example, in the Lindsay case in British Columbia, some Hells Angels were arrested. One of the Hells Angels had left his wallet on his bike at a rally. Since everyone knew it belonged to a member of Hells Angels it was safe from theft. In other words, an entire reign of terror can go along with recognition of affiliation to a group identified by a patch. The Bloc has reflected on this and feels that once an organization has been deemed by a court of justice to be a criminal, the display of symbols linking a person to that organization should be banned.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a bit ironic that this bill is before us today because it is an anniversary for the Conservative government. It has been a full year since the government has had any legislation before the justice committee. The reason has been entirely in its hands throughout that period of time.

I thought it was doubly ironic to listen to the justice minister in question period today and in some of his responses to questions today praise to high heaven the Conservatives' role in being tough on crime and that the opposition parties were delaying legislation. Let us look at the real history. These are facts.

A year ago the Conservative chairman of the justice committee took it upon himself to thwart any further work by that committee for the balance of the session.

[An hon. member]

That is not true.

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

Madam Speaker, it is true. I sat through all of that and it is true. I will repeat that and if anybody wants to take it outside the House, I would be quite happy to do that.

That is what happened. The government through its committee chair thwarted any work by the justice committee. It stalled all of the legislation. There were, as the justice minister said, five bills before the House and in that committee in that period of time and we could not deal with any of them because the chair constantly refused to allow the committee meetings to go ahead. That is what happened until June. We adjourned in June for our summer recess.

One has to ask, during that period of time, where was the government? Was it talking tough on crime? Was it telling the chairman to get back to work? No. Then what happened? The Prime Minister took it upon himself to decide that maybe he had a shot at a majority government. Does anyone think at any moment, at any second, it entered into his mind that he had to be tough on crime and keep the legislative process going to try to deal with some of the problems we are confronted with? Absolutely not. What did he do? He called an election. All of the bills that we had in the House and before the committee were gone.

What happened next? We came back in November after the election. The government was in trouble. The Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament. Does anyone think that at any time, for even a nanosecond he took into account his championing of being tough on crime? Absolutely not.

We came back after prorogation. We have been here for two months, and today for the first time we are debating the crime bill.

That is the record of the government. I know I am not supposed to use this term, but it is the height of lack of credibility on the Conservatives' part when they stand in the House, or out on the hustings and before public groups and claim they are tough on crime and it is a major consideration for them. When one looks at the history over the last 12 to 13 months, it is simply not true.

I have been asked on a number of occasions since Bill C-14 was tabled as to whether we would support it. I have indicated we would. Because of some of the provisions that are in it, I have been asked why. There are three reasons.

There are two good provisions in it. In the bill, we are extending protection to our police officers and our justice officials, something that has been needed for quite some time. Quite frankly, it could have been done in a number of criminal justice bills that we have had for the last four years, both under the Liberals and the Conservatives but it was never done until finally we are getting to it now.

Another reason for supporting it is that there are some specific provisions which go to something I am surprised the government caught on to. It is about prevention. There is a provision in the bill of extending the use of the recognizance sections of the Criminal Code, which are already there, for a longer period of time, from one year to two. The bill also extends the discretion that we are giving to the judiciary of conditions the judiciary can impose on people who have been involved historically in gang activity so that we can control them. We can in fact watch their conduct, what they are doing and with whom they are associating, including at the discretion of the judge, giving the judge the authority to require them to wear electronic ankle bracelets so we can track wherever they are.

It can require them to participate in a treatment program. A great deal of the people we deal with, as we have already heard today from other speakers, have mental health problems and addiction problems, so we can actually compel them to take part in treatment programs and tell them to stay within geographic areas. That means keeping them away from our schools and other places where they may be able to get at our youth, to stay in their homes for specified periods of time and to abstain from the consumption of drugs and alcohol, other than according to medical prescriptions.

We are expanding quite significantly the judicial discretion in this regard. It is a very good part of the legislation. It is, again, a part that we have needed for quite some time and it can be used as part of our fight against the street gangs and organized crime more generally.

Those are two reasons why we are doing it.

The third one, and this sounds perhaps a bit sarcastic, is that for those two reasons, there are other provisions in the bill that are really quite questionable in terms of any particular effectiveness they will have. As we heard in one of the questions from the Bloc, the Conservatives appear to be duplicating provisions of the Criminal Code that are already there and that could be used to deal with the type of conduct.

I know I am being a bit sarcastic, but if this will satisfy the Conservative Party and the Conservative government to move on to more meaningful conduct, then we will support the bill for that reason as well.

Let me address a couple of those areas.

We are, in effect, requiring first degree murder charges to be laid when the conduct that results in a death is associated with a criminal gang or terrorism. We have done this as a result of the battle that went on in Quebec against the bikers. We had amended the code in that period of time to deal with the use of explosives, again, both when it was related to organized crime and/or terrorism acts. If explosives were used in those circumstances and a death resulted, it was automatic that a first degree murder charge would be laid.

The significance is that if it is a first degree murder charge and the person is convicted, the sentence is automatically 25 years or life, which is a minimum of 25 years, so it significantly increases the potential penalty the person will receive if convicted. It makes sense to do that in the present set of circumstances of what we are dealing with in terms of organized crime.

It was interesting, in the last couple of days I have sat on both the justice committee and the public safety committee. Both times we were dealing with the issue of gangs and organized crime. What has come out in the course of that, from the RCMP and Border Services, is the number of gangs that have grown in the country just in the last few years. If we go back to 2004-05, the number of street gangs have almost doubled in that period of time.

They do not fit the traditional model. They are not large organizations or the stereotype of organized crime or the biker gangs. These tend to be smaller units, sometimes as few as four or five people, that are committing significant crimes and becoming more and more violent.

It is important to put into context the crime rate in our country when we look at this and why it is so important that we target the gangs. What has happened is the crime rates in Canada have gone down in every category over the last 20 years. The one exception is the crimes being committed by gangs.

Last year and the year before, approximately 20% of all the murders in the country were committed by members of gangs; that is a full one-fifth of all murders. A great deal of murders are being committed with guns that are being smuggled into the country and stolen from lawful users. Those are the kinds of targets we have to go after. Generally, the other provisions of the bill really do not do that.

We have what is colloquially known as the drive-by shooting section. We have now made that a crime. Quite frankly, there are any number of other provisions in the Criminal Code that would deal with that. It is hard to envision a scenario of a drive-by shooting that would not be caught by other provisions of the code, which have quite severe penalties, whether it be murder, manslaughter, second degree murder or criminal negligence. There are all kinds of other provisions that could be used.

To some degree, there is some smoke and mirrors in the bill. We are prepared to support it if we can get it through because of the other provisions around the recognizance and the protection that we would provide to our justice officials, including police officers.

In the last few minutes I will spend my time on what the NDP believes should be the real thrust of the government to deal with the spike in crimes in British Columbia, in 2005 in Toronto and around the end of the last century in Quebec, Montreal in particular. The Quebec situation is probably the best example, but in the studies and analysis I see of what went on in Toronto, the same thing was true there.

It has nothing to do with any legislation we can pass here. It is absolutely essential that we have an integrated process among all the police service agencies; that is the RCMP, the provincial police if there is one in that province, the local municipal police, the Canada Border Services Agency and on down the list.

It is one of the problems we have identified already in B.C. There is not enough coordination going on there. Crime does not pay attention to municipal boundaries. It crosses them on a regular basis and, at times, it crosses them because it may be easier to commit the crime in the other municipality. That integration and coordination is an absolutely essential requirement and it requires the government to look at providing additional resources to the police agencies across the country, particularly in the province of British Columbia.

The Conservatives promised a total of 2,500 police officers and they still have not fully delivered on that. They have not even come close. They led the country to believe they would do that. What they actually intended to do was to dump most of the costs on the provinces. A number of the provinces have been unable to match the federal money, so we still do not have the police officers on the street. The specific agencies that need to be covered, in terms of additional resources, would be part of that integrated strategy.

There was evidence in the public safety committee in the last Parliament that the witness protection program was bifurcated across the country. The federal one is very weak. It is not funded well enough by any means. The provinces and in some cases municipalities have had to take this responsibility on. They do not have the financial resources to do that, only the federal government does. They are still sitting on that work and have not done anything from what I have seen for the last almost two years.

We need to provide additional resources to our prosecutors. I think back to the problem of going after biker gangs in Ontario. We had one prosecutor, an articling student and one secretarial staff member to take on two of the largest defence lawyers and their firms in what would be a monumental case.

What happened was one of the chief prosecutors in the province had to threaten to withdraw services before enough resources were acquired to prosecute that case. There was a conviction in that case. The finding was that the bikers were in fact a criminal gang. That was a major breakthrough in Ontario. B.C. is in a similar situation right now. It needs additional resources.

We need to toughen up our proceeds of crime legislation. It is almost a bit of joke. What has happened again is the provinces, having given up on the federal government, have begun to do this much more effectively than our federal legislation.

I should recognize the work of my colleague from the Bloc on the justice committee. We are studying organized crime. I know this is one of the areas we will look at and come back with recommendations of how we need to strengthen our proceeds of crime legislation. That will go right at the gangs, both the traditional, organized ones and the street gangs.

Finally, we need to increase our prevention programs. It was interesting to listen to the Minister of Justice stand and brag about how much they had done in that regard. The Conservatives only spent 60% of what they had allocated for prevention programs in the 2008-09 budget. My perception is that a number of the programs they chose would not be very effective.

What the Conservatives have done is treat this almost like a business. They want criteria that will fit nicely in a business organization, but has nothing to do with criteria we would need to determine whether the agency is successful in preventing crime and keeping kids in recreational programs and other programs that keep them off the street and away from drug consumption and other crime. Instead, they have set up this very rigid almost meaningless criteria of a business case that these agencies have to show in order to prove they should have money to prevent youth, in particular, from getting involved in crime.

In summary, the NDP will support this at second reading. There are a couple of questions I have on the bill that may require amendments at committee, but, at best, that would be fine-tuning. We expect to get this through committee very quickly and back to the House for third reading and passage and put the provisions that are useful into work. We will do that as rapidly as we can. Then, hopefully, we will see some additional work by the government to get at the real problems we face in the country, in B.C., in particular, give the agencies the resources they need and begin to drive down the rate of crime and in that community, the rate of murder, in particular.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague. I always find him thoughtful, sincere and well-spoken and I do have the utmost personal respect for him.

I gather he can the Prime Minister's mind. That is quite a feat.

I will not bother going into some of the crises that prevented us from getting to some of those things he would like us to get to, which we are getting to now. I will point out that perception for some people equals their personal fact. Other perceptions for other people may be a diametrically opposed fact, but that is okay.

I am pleased to hear the members of the NDP will support it, that they will work with the government to perhaps make the bill better, hopefully, at committee and wherever else they can. That is welcomed.

However, I will ask him to comment on one thing. When he said we did nothing to increase the number of police officers, that is patently untrue. There is some difficulty in doing that. We cannot just go to Wal-Mart, to the police section, and pick police officers off the shelf. We have to recruit them, train them and retain them. The robust economy that we had up until recently has added an extra challenge.

Would he agree that we have made efforts in that area? We are not there yet, we have a ways to go, but perhaps an outcome of the current economy is that it may be easier now to recruit members to the RCMP, members to the municipal police forces, and we will perhaps make more progress toward our goals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any doubt that the Conservative want the additional police officers. However, I want to be very clear, because I went through those elections, too, in 2004 and 2006. In both cases, the Conservative Party was very clear it would put these additional police officers on the streets of our country and it would increase the number of RCMP officers. I do not think the Conservatives understood what that meant at the time, in terms of the points my colleague just raised, such as the length of time it take to train. We did not have, and we do not yet have a training centre in Saskatchewan that was large enough to take in the additional trainees we needed for the RCMP. It is in the process of completing that.

There are other things the Conservatives could be doing with the RCMP that would also make it attractive for people to join, one of which would be to stabilize where people are sent, as opposed to them and their families being moved all over the country, oftentimes on whims that do not make a lot of sense.

The other thing, though, that really bothered me, and still bothers me, is that throughout those elections, including in 2008, the Conservatives never said that they would spend the money, but it would have to matched by the provincial governments for the additional police officers for municipal and provincial police forces. Any number of provinces said that they could not do it. The negotiations went on for over a year.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for setting the record straight at the beginning of his remarks. I want to ask him an important question for Canadians who might be watching and following this debate. He was, of course, a practising lawyer at the time when the former Progressive Conservative government in Ontario was in power. He will recollect that at that time that administration also ran repeatedly on a strong so-called law and order platform.

Most Canadians now know that there is quite a gulf between the law and order rhetoric of the Conservative Party, both then provincially and now federally, and what has actually been happening here.

Does the member believe that the tone now being set by the government is connected to the fact that the five architects of the Mike Harris revolution are now either front line cabinet ministers or the chief of staff to the Prime Minister?

At the time, Mr. Harris attacked squeegee kids and, in fact, one of his cabinet ministers was caught on cameras saying that the republican tactic is to cause conflict and create the conflict for the media. Could he help us understand if there is a connection here on both sides?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no question about the ideological orientation that flows out of the quite right-wing movement in the United States. What is interesting is that it was not copied in England by Mrs. Thatcher to any significant degree, perhaps because of a different structure in government there.

However, that right-wing approach by both the members from the Harris government and the people who are part of the Conservative government now, is very consistent ideologically. There is absolutely no question about that. The current Minister of Finance made comments that putting squeegee kids and panhandlers in jail was the simple and easy way to do it. The ideological approach is just that. It is a simplistic one. It is not in keeping with all of the knowledge that we have now. It ignores the reality that our crime rates have gone down.

One of the reasons that our crime rates spiked in Toronto in our youth was, in part, because of the number of economic cuts that were made to social programs. Those who were kids when the Harris government was in are now teenagers and young adults. Their parents and families did not have the ability to take care of them to a degree. They could not get mental health services for them. One sees that and the same pattern is going on with the government.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my learned colleague made reference to the need for having an enforcement strategy when new laws are tabled and are about to come into force. He spoke to the need for thinking ahead for police officers in training and the need for prosecutors. In my own city of Edmonton, which, sad to say, is now fifth in order of the highest rate of gang-related incidents in Canada, we have a serious problem. It would be good to have stricter penalties but in Alberta we have a severe shortage of prosecutors.

Only a year ago, we had a mass exodus of prosecutors from both the Edmonton and Calgary criminal prosecutors offices, an exodus of a total of 56 experienced criminal prosecutors, leaving junior recruits to prosecute serious offences. Now, we are going to have even more serious offences added.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague could speak to the issue of whether or not it is good to think ahead, when one is tabling a bill, in terms of whether or not we will have the calibre of experts in place to be both investigating and prosecuting these cases.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no question in my mind about the need to do that kind of planning. The government does not do it very well at all. We saw that with its bill last time on conditional sentences. That bill would have increased the population in our provincial prisons. It would have been the provinces paying for that, not the federal government.

We were going to increase the population in our provincial prisons by at least 60% across the board. It keeps adding this on. It is not providing anywhere near enough assistance for legal aid on that side and for the prosecutors on the prosecution side. I have already made my comments about the police. There is no question that it is not easy to prosecute these serious crimes and we do need very experienced prosecutors to to do it. However, we clearly do not have enough in the country at this time.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh for his speech and for his contribution to the justice committee. I also sit on the justice committee and I always enjoy and learn something from my friend. He is a tax lawyer, as I am, and we do not always have the same viewpoints, but I always find his contribution meaningful and insightful.

In the member's preamble, he talked about some delays that this government has allegedly encountered with respect to moving forward on its crime bill and, specifically, he commented about the actions of the justice committee in the 39th Parliament on which, I understand he was a member. I was not as I was not a member of the 39th Parliament.

The hon. member will know that committees are the authors of their own agendas, but it is my understanding that the reason the justice committee in the 39th Parliament did not study the bills that were before Parliament was its absolute insistence, the sub judice rule notwithstanding, to study the then litigation between two members of the House and the Liberal Party of Canada. The justice committee's preoccupation with that piece of litigation was the reason that the committee did not go forward on the justice bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. The committee chair ruled on a motion from the Bloc or the Liberals that involved the Cadman affair. It was not in order for that ruling to be before the committee. The member is right about that.

There was then a movement by the opposition parties to overturn the chair's ruling. I made it quite clear that I was not prepared to support his ruling being overturned. Because the votes in that committee were so close, as long as he left the chair, then the committee could not function. That is what happened from early March right through to June of last year, he refused to sit in the chair. He would sometimes call meetings but that is the history of that. It was entirely his responsibility.

Although I supported his interpretation of our responsibilities and our mandate as the justice committee and I was opposed to what the Liberals and the Bloc were doing, I also felt that, based on democracy, if the committee overruled his decision he had to live with that and that he could not use procedural rules to avoid that democratic process.

[Dona Cadman, Conservative, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to express my strong support for Bill C-14. The bill proposes amendments to fortify the Criminal Code's responses to organized crime. Most notably, it takes direct aim at the increasing use of violence committed by organized crime.

This violence has eroded public confidence. This violence is disrupting people's lives and causing them to fear for their safety and, in the most extreme cases, this violence is costing innocent Canadians their lives.

With these amendments, we are sending the right message to Canadians and demonstrating our commitment to improving the safety and security of communities across Canada. As hon. members are now aware, this bill is focused on four separate areas.

I am pleased to hear that members of the opposition have already indicated that they intend to support this legislation. This demonstrates that they are finally appreciating the seriousness of the issue. I am extremely pleased that partisan politics has been put aside to advance this legislation quickly and in the interests of all Canadians.

The murder of another person is the most serious offence in our Criminal Code. Anyone who is found guilty of murder is sentenced to a mandatory penalty of life imprisonment. Those convicted of first degree murder are ineligible for parole for 25 years, while those convicted of second degree murder are ineligible for parole for a minimum of 10 years and up to a maximum of 25 years.

Section 231 of the Criminal Code classifies murder as either first degree or second degree. Some examples of where murder is currently classified as first degree include: murders that are planned and deliberate, such as contract killings; murders that involve specific victims, for example police officers; murders committed during offences of domination, such as sexual assault; and murders committed during the commission of explosive offences for a criminal organization.

Bill C-14 proposes to amend the classification provision pertaining to organized crime by broadening it to make all murders that can be linked to organized crime automatically first degree. The amendments focus on the link to organized crime specifically and the inherent danger that organized crime activity poses to the public. It would do this in two ways.

First, if it can be established that the murder itself was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization, then it will be classified as first degree murder even in the absence of planning and deliberation.

Second, if it can be established that the murder occurred while the person was committing or attempting to commit another indictable offence for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in the association of a criminal organization, then it would be classified as first degree even in the absence of planning and deliberation.

These amendments send the right message. Canada is experiencing increasing high levels of gang violence. The rate of gang homicides in Canada has been consistently increasing over the last number of years, unlike the homicide rate, more generally, that has been decreasing.

Innocent people are losing their lives and public safety is suffering. This activity should be strongly condemned and deterred. I believe the proposed changes achieve this in no uncertain terms.

The second proposed area of reform targets another particularly serious and dangerous phenomenon. Drive-by and other similarly reckless shootings have the potential to harm, not only those who are the target of attacks but the public more broadly. These incidents are often indiscriminate and occur in the heat of the moment. They are easy to commit and difficult to prove.

Bill C-14 proposes a new offence to assist police officers investigating this conduct. This offence is aimed at those who would intentionally discharge their firearm with a reckless attitude toward the life or safety of another person. In other words, it does not focus on any specifically intended consequences but rather targets the deliberate disregard for another person's safety.

There is something particularly disturbing to me about a situation in which someone specifically turns their mind to the fact that the shooting of a firearm would put the lives of others at risk, but in spite of this fact goes ahead and shoots anyway. This activity cries out for a strong response, and Bill C-14 delivers it.

This offence would be punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty of four years of imprisonment and a maximum penalty of 14 years of imprisonment.

The minimum penalty goes up to five years of imprisonment if the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. In addition, repeat offenders who have used a prohibited or restricted firearm or committed the offence for organized crime would be subject to a mandatory minimum penalty of seven years of imprisonment.

I strongly support this new legislation and I believe the public supports this kind of approach as well.

The bill also responds to assaults committed against peace and public officers. Two new offences are being proposed, one of assault against peace officers causing bodily harm or involving the use of a weapon, and the other of aggravated assault against peace officers. These offences are punishable on indictment by maximum periods of imprisonment of 10 and 14 years respectively. Both “peace officer” and “public officer” are defined in the Criminal Code, and include persons such as prison guards, wardens, border guards, customs officers and, of course, police officers.

Some might ask why these separate offences are created, when existing provisions address aggravated assault or assault causing bodily harm. The answer is relatively straightforward. Assaults committed against those who are responsible for the maintenance of public peace are an affront to Canada's justice system and the rule of law, and must be specifically denounced.

That is why, in addition to creating stand-alone offences, the bill would require a court to give primary consideration to the principles of denunciation and deterrence when sentencing an offender for any of the offences involving assault against police officers, as well as in cases involving the intimidation of justice system participants, such as judges, prosecutors or jurors.

Finally, the bill is focused on strengthening the use of the gang recognizance provision, or what is commonly referred to as a peace bond. A peace bond is a crime prevention tool that is aimed at preventing future offences from occurring. These amendments would clarify that when issuing a peace bond, a judge can impose any condition that he or she feels is necessary to secure the good conduct of the defendant.

The amendments will also extend the length of the order to up to 24 months if the defendant has been previously convicted of a criminal organization offence.

These amendments would also help us address the behaviour of those suspected of engaging in organized crime behaviour and hopefully prevent this activity from occurring in the first place.

I started my speech by noting that I was happy to see that the bill enjoyed wide support. I hope the support will enable us to move the bill through Parliament and into law as quickly as possible. Canadians deserve nothing less.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Surrey North for her speech and for mentioning that we should not play partisan games when it comes to bringing in legislation on crime. She is right, because crime does not have any political boundaries.

I have a question for the hon. member. In the last few days Wally Oppal, Attorney General for British Columbia, and John van Dongen, Solicitor General for British Columbia, came here and made three demands to deal with crime in British Columbia. One was on remand credits. The second one was for updated search and surveillance measures, and the third was on gathering of evidence. I would like to ask the hon. member how she feels about those three measures. Would she be supportive of those three measures to deal with that situation?

[Dona Cadman, Conservative, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is just the first step and the beginning of many, I believe. There are definitely more things that have to be done, but this is the first step. This step is required to control the gangs that are out of control right now in B.C.

Gangs are destroying lives and causing communities a lot of grief. It goes from Vancouver to Montreal. It is all over the place. Gangs are running rampant, and it is time that we stopped them and made them accountable for everything they are doing.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the States of the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland), the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Republic of Iceland, the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Kingdom of Norway and the Agreement on Agriculture between Canada and the Swiss Confederation, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of Motion No. 1.

Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on Motion No. 1 at report stage of Bill C-2.

Call in the members.