John Maloney

[Petitions, December 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition deals with concern over Revenue Canada having reduced the amount deductible on social security for residents who worked in the United States. It is causing a hardship for senior citizens.

They are calling on parliament to return to the former deductions as established prior to the change of December 1997.

[Petitions, December 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on parliament to put forward a motion to cancel the backlog of unpayable debt of the most impoverished nations. It asks our leaders to call on leaders of the world to write off these debts.

[Petitions, December 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House. The first deals with the concern of Canadians about the sexual exploitation of children.

It calls on parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to set the age of consent at 18 years, except in a husband and wife relationship, to provide protection from exploitation and abuse.

[Canada-U.S. Border, December 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, following meetings with U.S. representatives, could the Minister of National Revenue tell us what action is being taken at our common borders?

[An act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, December 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments this afternoon on this debate. It was suggested a little earlier this afternoon, by I believe it was the member for Provencher, that we were watering down the amendment proposed by the member for Oshawa. I would suggest that is simply not the case. What we are in fact doing is simply clarifying it and making it such that it will stand the scrutiny of time and of the courts.

With respect to Motion No. 6, the new offence created by the motion introduced by our colleague the member for Oshawa, as presently worded, would extend application of the offence provisions to law enforcement animals whether or not they are actively engaged in law enforcement at the time the offence is committed.

This runs directly counter to the policy of the animal cruelty provisions as a whole. It retains the notion that particular animals should be treated differently from other animals. It is also unclear from the amendment whether these provisions would override the general cruelty to animal provisions elsewhere in Part V.I when offences are committed in respect of law enforcement animals. In some cases, there may be an overlap between elements of an offence under the amendments versus an offence listed in either subsection 182.2 or subsection 182.3 of Bill C-15B.

The offence provision, as redrafted, makes it clear that the law enforcement animals are being protected because of the risk that they face on a daily basis in the course of assisting peace officers and public officers. The offence applies when they are aiding or assisting a peace officer or a public officer engaged in the execution of their duties or a person aiding the officer. The offence in the amendment would criminalize the actions of anyone who wilfully or recklessly poisons, injures or kills a law enforcement animal while it is aiding or assisting a police officer or public officer in his or her work.

For accuracy, clarity and certainty in the law two references had to be changed: peace officer or public officer is well-known in criminal law and was substituted for the term law enforcement personnel. The notion of assault could not be retained because the assault provisions of the criminal code relate only to human beings.

The amendment does not include an offence of poisoning a law enforcement animal while it is kenneled, penned, transported or otherwise held because these are activities that are already covered in the general cruelty to animal provisions. Animals in these circumstances are not actively engaged in assisting a police officer or public officer and therefore a provision creating a specific offence for law enforcement animals in these situations would tend to undermine the policy of the cruelty provisions as a whole, that specific animals should not be given preferential treatment over other animals per se.

The amendment would also modify the restitution provision to make it comply with the requirements of criminal law. The courts have said that a restitution order in a criminal context must be logically related to the objectives of sentencing. The courts have held that a restitution is part of the overall punishment and must consider the total impact of the punishment, as well as the impact of the restitution order on the rehabilitation of the offender.

The Supreme Court of Canada has said that restitution orders should not be made where there is any serious contest on legal or factual issues about damages. That is why there is a requirement in the general restitution provisions in section 738 of the criminal code that the damages must be readily ascertainable.

Symmetry, clarity and certainty in the law is achieved if the restitution order in the context of law enforcement animals is similar to the restitution provisions in Part XXIII of the criminal code regarding sentencing.

Just before I leave this part, again I would like to compliment the member for Oshawa for bringing forth his amendment and bringing it to our attention and to the attention of the committee. It certainly has been an area of concern for him and for many of our police officers who have these animals that assist in law enforcement.

I would also like to make one further comment. I believe it was again the member for Provencher who suggested that the so-called screening amendment was being advanced in a sort of underhanded or less than straightforward way. I would simply point out the fact that this amendment was advanced in Bill C-15A, was considered by the justice committee and this House, was voted on I believe by the government as well as by the official opposition and passed.

It has gone through. We looked at it for roughly six months. It has been considered by the committee. We heard witnesses on it, and it certainly cannot be said that we are doing anything in a perhaps less than straightforward manner. It has been dealt with under Bill-15A and that party voted for Bill-15A.

[Petitions, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions dealing with the wanton cruelty to or torture of animals. The petitioners feel that it is a serious criminal offence and that the penalties should reflect that. They call upon parliament to pass Bill C-15B forthwith.

[Petitions, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have three petitions to present that deal with protecting people with disabilities.

The petitioners call upon parliament under section 51 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to uphold the Latimer decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, December 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report from the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the 13th seminar of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which was held in Tasmania from October 15 to October 21, 2001.

[Criminal Code, June 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-24, an act to amend the criminal code in relation to organized crime and law enforcement and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The standing committee has completed its consideration of the bill. I am pleased to say that the committee endorsed the bill with only a few amendments. Bill C-24 has been reported back to the House of Commons with those amendments.

I want to first thank my colleagues on the committee for their work with respect to the bill. In particular, I would point out that there were members on the standing committee who had participated in the subcommittee on organized crime during the last parliament. It was their report and the recommendations contained therein that are reflected in the government's legislation before us.

As we all know, it is a matter of utmost importance that we expand and enhance the tools available to law enforcement authorities and the criminal justice system to address the serious problem of organized crime. The committee members examining Bill C-24 understood this and recognized the need to move forward quickly with the bill.

At the same time, they recognized that we must ensure that the tools provided are the correct tools. Bill C-24 includes provisions of some complexity that would make important additions to the law of Canada. The committee members considered the provisions of the bill very carefully and with a clear understanding of its objectives. We can be confident in their work.

I must also highlight the assistance provided to the committee by the numerous witnesses who appeared before it. These witnesses provided substantial, thought provoking testimony and often did so on very short notice. Their efforts in preparing and presenting testimony were vital to the committee's proceedings.

The House will recall that Bill C-24, as approved at second reading, included proposals that fall under four main categories.

First, it would improve protection from intimidation for persons who play a role in the justice system.

Second, it would create an accountable process to protect law enforcement officers from criminal liability for certain otherwise illegal acts committed in the course of an investigation.

Third, it would broaden the powers of law enforcement officers to seize and forfeit the proceeds of crime and property used in crimes.

Fourth, it would create important new offences targeting involvement in criminal organizations.

While endorsing all four main elements of the bill, the committee made a number of amendments in its report to the House. The amendments would not alter the main thrust of the bill but rather make improvements upon it. The amendments would reinforce the effectiveness of the bill and refine the application of certain law enforcement tools.

I will briefly discuss the principal amendments.

With respect to protection from intimidation, the definition of a participant in the criminal justice system has been expanded to include members of provincial legislative assemblies and municipal councils. The definition already included members of the Senate and of this House as well as persons playing a role in the administration of justice. Expanding it to include members of legislative assemblies and municipal councils would recognize that other legislators have been called upon to play a role in the fight against organized crime and could be vulnerable as a result.

A further amendment was adopted which would extend the intimidation offence to include situations where journalists are threatened. Committee members felt that journalists play a vital public role by reporting on organized crime. Groundbreaking investigative journalism has assisted Canadians in understanding the nature and extent of organized crime in Canada. However, as we are aware, reporting on organized crime can come at a price. That is why the committee decided to amend the new intimidation offence to include journalists.

The government accepted the change to include journalists. However, upon further examination, it recognized that improvements to the amendment accepted by the committee were necessary to achieve the intended objective.

We are therefore presenting an amendment on behalf of the government that would add references to journalists to the intent provisions in subsection 423.1(1) and the description of prohibited conduct in subsection 423.1(2). The change to those provisions would add the specific intent of impeding journalists in the fulfilment of their role in reporting on criminal organizations.

There is no definition in the criminal code of what organized crime means. There has never been an agreement, either domestically or internationally, as to exactly what such a term may comprise. However a definition of criminal organization was added to the criminal code in 1997. Bill C-24 would refine and sharpen that definition.

A new paragraph in the bill, 423.1(1)(c), would thus make it an offence to intimidate a journalist:

—in order to impede him or her in the transmission to the public of information in relation to a criminal organization.

The motion proposed by the Bloc Quebecois would address the same issue but in far too broad a manner. The motion from the member for Berthier—Montcalm would make it an offence to intimidate a journalist with the intent of impeding the performance of his or her duties. That would mean journalists would be covered by this serious offence regardless of whether their work involved organized crime or any part of the criminal justice system.

The government agrees that journalists who report on criminal organizations are in danger and should be protected by the new offence. We should not underestimate the implications of such a broad amendment. It is a very serious offence indeed, punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment.

As a result of another provision in Bill C-24, a murder which occurs as a result of this offence would be first degree murder. The application of the offence to journalists must be limited to those whose work puts them in danger from criminal organizations. The government's motion would do exactly that.

Under the amendment made by the government's motion, it would also be an offence to intimidate a journalist when the intent, under paragraph 423.1(1)(a), is:

—to provoke a state of fear in a group of persons or the general public in order to impede the administration of justice;

There were technical problems in the amendment adopted by the committee. To address these problems, the amendment I have presented would add references to journalists to subsection 423.1(2). Such references are necessary to ensure that the definition of prohibited conduct includes conduct aimed both at journalists and at persons known to them. This would ensure that acts which seek to intimidate journalists through their family and friends are caught by the offence, as I am sure the committee would have wished.

We are proposing in the same motion limited amendments that would: first, add the word “criminal” in regard to the administration of justice in paragraph 423.1(1)(a) in order to be consistent with the definition of justice system participant in clause 1 of the bill; and second, add the words “provoke a state of fear” in the opening words of subsection 423.1(1) so that it describes the intent involved in all the paragraphs of that subsection rather than just paragraph (a) as is now the case.

This would better express the bill's original intent to penalize conduct which seeks to intimidate by causing fear. It would also address concerns expressed by witnesses before the committee that the new offence might be interpreted to apply to peaceful lobbying or protest activity aimed at legislators.

In connection with the amendments to section 423.1, we are also presenting two other consequential amendments. These involve the reference to the new offence in section 423.1 in the list of offences under section 183 of the criminal code, both in the main part of the bill and in a co-ordinating clause. The change simply reflects the addition of the application to journalists in the description of the offence.

I return now to the other amendments that were endorsed by the committee and that have been reported back to this House. With respect to the limited protection for law enforcement officers and agents who work under their direction and control, an amendment was added to provide specific examples of the conditions that ministers may impose on the designations that bring officers under these provisions. The protection from criminal liability is subject to important controls and limitations, and this amendment helps to clarify the nature of one of these controls.

Another amendment to the provisions on protection from criminal liability clarifies the requirements for the application of the protection to agents acting under the direction of law enforcement officers. This refinement adds a further safeguard to ensure the proper operation of these provisions.

A further amendment provides for a parliamentary review of these provisions within three years of their coming into force. This review will examine the sections dealing with protection from criminal liability. Parliament will then have an opportunity to consider whether improvements are needed. The supreme court has indicated that parliament has a responsibility for providing for protection from criminal liability for law enforcement officers. The three year review provision emphasizes this parliamentary authority and responsibility.

With respect to the provisions defining a criminal organization, an amendment was made to clarify that a criminal group will fall under this definition whether its members are situated inside or outside Canada.

This amendment recognizes the international nature of organized crime and ensures that the new offences of participating in, benefiting and directing a criminal organization will have the corresponding adequate scope. The criminal activity affected will still have to have a substantial connection with Canada and the amendment thus does not involve any extraterritorial application of Canadian law.

The committee also made a number of other technical amendments to improve Bill C-24. These are included in the amended text of the bill that has been reported.

In closing, I would like to thank the committee for its work on all these amendments, substantive and technical, and for its work in examining the bill as a whole. The result is an effective and balanced bill that would substantively improve our ability to fight organized crime in this country as well as improve law enforcement generally.

We look forward to the debate at third reading.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 8th, 2001]

With regard to the Canadian firearms Program: (a) The budget allocation for fiscal year 2001-02 is $34,866,292.

(b) The cost breakdown for fiscal year 2001-02 is as follows:

(c) The total net program cost since its inception in 1995 is $489.3 million.

Question No. 47—