Lost her last election, in 2006, with 39% of the vote.
Justice April 24th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the hon. member has written to me about this matter. It is obviously a very difficult and troubling situation. Unfortunately the federal government has no jurisdiction in this matter, at least I do not as Minister of Justice.
I would suggest the hon. member would be better placed to contact my provincial colleague, the minister of justice in the province of Alberta, and bring this to his attention, if that is where these events took place.
Justice April 24th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, these are complex and difficult issues. What I find very strange is that the Alliance Party does not want federal and provincial governments to consult with Canadians on what they want to see in any changes to our family law system. I will not act without hearing from those Canadians.
Justice April 24th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, let me say again that the government responded to the report “For the Sake of the Children”.
We indicated that we accept the fact that custody and access are difficult issues for many families who are in the process of separation and divorce. There are not easy solutions to these questions.
The hon. member should understand that the Divorce Act does not even apply upon separation. That is provincial family law. That is why we have to work with the provinces to make sure we continue to have a seamless family law system.
Justice April 24th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, I said I would report back to the House not only on the recommendations in the report “For the Sake of the Children”, but also on our child support guidelines no later than May 2002.
I come back to the fact that family law is a shared jurisdiction. I find it hard to believe that the Alliance Party would suggest that we in the federal government should do anything in an area of shared jurisdiction without consulting the provinces.
Justice April 24th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, as I explained yesterday, our family law system is a shared jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government.
In fact, what we are doing right now is working with the provinces. We are holding joint federal and provincial consultations with Canadians all over the country. We are consulting on specific recommendations for reform.
I find it shocking that the party which talks about grassroots participation would not want the federal and provincial governments working together to consult with Canadians on these important matters.
Justice April 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the government's response to the report “For the Sake of the Children” is that the provinces, territories and the federal government would consult broadly with Canadians.
I find shocking that his party which preaches grassroots participation, I guess does not want us to consult with Canadians.
Justice April 23rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the government responded to the report of the joint parliamentary committee entitled “For the Sake of the Children”.
As part of our response we indicated, in case the hon. member has forgotten, that the family law system is a shared jurisdiction: provinces, territories and the federal government. I indicated that we would undertake a joint consultation with the provinces, with the territories and with Canadians. I am very pleased to say that the consultation has now begun with Canadians.
I find it just a little shocking that party which preaches the rhetoric—
Criminal Code April 23rd, 2001
moved that Bill C-24, an act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to lead off the debate on an issue of major concern to all Canadians: the problem of organized crime and the legislative tools available to our police, prosecutors and courts to address that problem.
In the Speech from the Throne, our government promised to take aggressive steps to combat organized crime, including the creation of stronger anti-gang laws.
Building upon the foundation that the government put in place over the past several years, including the 1997 anti-gang amendments to the criminal code, the proposed legislation would enable law enforcement to respond to the threat of organized crime in the country.
Bill C-24, an act to amend the criminal code regarding organized crime and law enforcement, responds to our commitment to law enforcement officials and to my provincial counterparts to provide additional legislative tools to assist them in the fight against the many manifestations of organized crime. The legislative measures set out in Bill C-24 seek to assist Canadian law enforcement officials in the fight against organized crime.
These proposals fall into four categories: first, measures to improve the protection of people who play a role in the justice system from intimidation; second, the creation of an accountable process to protect law enforcement officers from criminal liability for certain otherwise illegal acts committed in the course of an investigation; third, legislation to broaden the powers of law enforcement to forfeit the proceeds of crime, and in particular the profits of criminal organizations, and to seize property that was used in a crime; and, fourth, the creation of a number of new offences targeting involvement with criminal organizations.
I would like to take a few moments to acknowledge the valuable contributions made to its development by my provincial colleagues and their officials. It has been a truly collaborative effort characterized by mutual respect, patience and a commitment to the development of a broad based response to the threats of organized crime.
These efforts resulted in the adoption last September of the national agenda to combat organized crime. In Iqaluit, the solicitor general and I agreed with our provincial and territorial colleagues on an action plan. That plan has several key elements, but expanded and strengthened legislative tools were at the forefront of this national response.
We recognize that tougher and more effective laws are not the full answer to the problem of organized crime. The enforcement program that we announced when the bill was introduced demonstrates our commitment to attacking the problem on all fronts.
The first aspect of Bill C-24 involves a range of steps to deal with the intimidation of persons involved in the criminal justice system. There are those who ask why is it necessary to amend the law to deal with the intimidation of persons involved in the criminal justice system. They point to a number of provisions in the criminal code that might be employed to address this issue. The simple answer is that the existing law needs to be strengthened.
The criminal justice system depends for its proper functioning upon the participation of various members of our community. There are the professionals responsible for the investigation and prosecution of crime, the judges and those who deal with convicted offenders, and members of the public who participate as witnesses and jurors.
For all stakeholders to be able to participate effectively, they and those with whom they are associated must be free to act without being subjected to threats, prejudice, intimidation or physical injury.
In recent times prosecutors, judges, witnesses, police and prison guards, as well as their families, have been subjected to intimidation intended to destabilize the criminal justice system. The purpose of intimidation is to interfere with the ability to hold trials in an environment conducive to proper deliberations where participants in the system feel free to play the role expected of them.
Whether acts of intimidation are subtle or explicit they are of particular concern with regard to the prosecution of organized crime. Concern about organized crime was shared by members of parliament. Last year the subcommittee on organized crime was struck to examine a myriad of issues related to organized crime. It brought forward recommendations which included two specific criminal code amendments intended to address concerns over intimidation.
I am pleased to note that Bill C-24 implements both those recommendations. One of those recommendations called for the enactment of measures beyond those now in place to more fully protect jurors serving in trials related to organized crime.
Accordingly the government proposes changes to the jury selection process set out in the criminal code to allow a judge to order that the names and addresses of prospective jurors not be read out in open court. A judge would be empowered in appropriate cases to ban the publication of any information that could disclose the identity of a juror.
Additionally Bill C-24 not only increases the penalty associated with the existing offence of intimidation to five years imprisonment. It introduces a new offence punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment to deal with acts of intimidation that target justice system participants intended to impede the administration of criminal justice.
A new section of the criminal code would make it an offence to engage in acts of violence against a justice system participant or a family member of that participant. It would be an offence to harass, stalk or threaten these people with the intention of either provoking a state of fear in a group of persons or the general public in order to impede the administration of justice or a justice system participant in the performance of his or her duties.
I turn my attention now to the aspect of Bill C-24 that seeks to protect law enforcement officers from criminal liability when for legitimate law enforcement purposes they commit acts that would otherwise be illegal.
The Supreme Court of Canada in its unanimous 1999 judgment in Regina v Campbell and Shirose stated that the police was not immune from criminal liability for criminal activities committed in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation. However, while observing that “everybody is subject to the ordinary law of the land”, the supreme court explicitly recognized that “if some form of public interest immunity is to be extended to the police..., it should be left to parliament to delineate the nature and scope of the immunity and the circumstances in which it is available”. Through Bill C-24 the government takes up the challenge offered to it by the Supreme Court of Canada and properly assumes its responsibility to provide guidance.
After issuing a consultation paper last year and engaging in much consultation the government has put the proposals before the House. The proposed scheme contemplates several means of ensuring accountability. These involve a combination of new legislative measures contained in Bill C-24, police training, as well as reliance on existing judicial and disciplinary means to ensure compliance with rules governing their use of powers given under the law.
The legislation does not propose the granting of blanket immunity to all law enforcement officers for unlawful acts committed in the course of carrying out lawful law enforcement responsibilities. However, the legislation does provide a form of very limited immunity. Colleagues need to understand that for many years law enforcement authorities were working on the basis that they had common law immunity. All the supreme court did was make it plain that there was not common law immunity but called upon parliament to put in place a legislative scheme if it saw fit.
Here is how the scheme would work. When a public officer is engaged in the enforcement of any act of the Parliament of Canada, doing that which would otherwise constitute an offence may be permissible if the following elements exist.
First, before the person can act he or she must be designated a competent authority. The individual must also believe on reasonable grounds that committing the act or failing to act is the reasonable course of action and proportional in the circumstances and including whether there is any other available means of carrying out their duty.
Nothing in the proposed scheme would provide immunity for the intentional or criminally negligent causing of death or bodily harm; the wilful attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice; or conduct that would violate the sexual integrity of an individual.
Another feature of the legislative package before us today is a new approach to addressing participation in the activities of criminal organizations. The bill contains a new definition of criminal organization and three new offences that effectively criminalize the full range of involvement with organized crime.
At its core, the danger of organized crime flows from the enhanced threat posed to society when people combine for the commission of serious crimes. Historically criminal law has responded to this elevated harm by punishing individuals for engaging in conspiracy and for aiding or abetting the commission of specific offences.
In 1997 in Bill C-95 parliament went further and directly targeted organizations of such individuals for the very first time by providing a definition of criminal organization, increased investigative powers and increased penalties for those committing crimes in conjunction with criminal organizations.
Law enforcement officials and provincial attorneys general have called for a simplified definition of criminal organization and for offences that respond to all harmful forms of involvement in criminal organizations. That is precisely what we have done in the legislation before the House today.
The current definition only covers criminal organizations that have at least five members, at least two of whom have committed serious offences within the preceding five years. As well, the organizations themselves must be shown to have been committing crimes punishable by a maximum sentence of five years or more in prison.
Canada is a signatory to the United Nations convention against organized crime which affirms that a group of three persons having the aim of committing serious crimes constitutes a sufficient threat to society to warrant special scrutiny from the criminal justice system.
I believe that Canadians want our law enforcement officials to be able to target criminal groups of three or more individuals, one of whose main purposes or activities is either committing serious crimes or making it easier for others to commit serious crimes.
In conjunction with a more streamlined definition, the full range of involvement with criminal organizations is targeted in Bill C-24 by three new offences.
The first offence targets participation in or contribution to the activities of criminal organizations. Taking part in the activities of a criminal organization, even if such participation does not itself constitute an offence, will now be a crime where such actions are done for the purpose of enhancing the ability of the criminal organization to facilitate or commit indictable offences.
The bill also addresses the concern expressed by law enforcement officials and provincial attorneys general that the current requirement of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was a party to a specific crime shields from prosecution those in the upper echelons of criminal organizations who isolate themselves from its day to day activities.
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 expressed 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.
Some have called for mere membership in a criminal organization to be an offence. In my view such a proposal would be extremely difficult to apply and would be vulnerable to charter challenges.
The second new offence retains the core of section 467.1 of the criminal code which is the criminal organization offence introduced in Bill C-95. The new offence targets those who aid, abet, counsel or commit any indictable offence in conjunction with a criminal organization.
Unlike the existing provision, it would not require the crown to prove both that the accused has participated in or substantially contributed to the activities of a criminal organization and that he or she has been a party to the commission of an indictable offence punishable by five or more years of imprisonment. The participation-contribution requirement has been removed entirely and the range of offences targeted has been broadened to include all indictable offences.
The third new offence deals specifically with leaders in criminal organizations. Like the participation offence, it does so not by criminalizing status but by proscribing the harmful behaviour itself.
Leaders of criminal organizations pose a unique threat to society. Operationally they threaten us through their enhanced experience and skills. Motivationally they threaten us through their constant encouragement of potential and existing criminal organization members. Accordingly in the bill we have moved aggressively to identify, target and punish those within criminal organizations, whether or not formally designated as leaders, who knowingly instruct others to commit any offence, indictable or otherwise, under any act of parliament for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization.
The penalty provisions for the three offences I have outlined confirm the government's resolve to provide a proportionate and graduated means of addressing all forms of involvement with criminal organizations and to ultimately break the back of organized crime in Canada. The participation offence I previously described is punishable by a maximum of five years of imprisonment, the party liability offence by a maximum of 14 years of imprisonment, and the leadership related offence is punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment.
Furthermore each of these punishments has been fortified by an appropriately aggressive sentencing regime. Its two critical components are mandatory imposition of consecutive sentences for the offences and a presumptive parole ineligibility period of one-half the imposed sentence. When these measures are combined with our newly expanded and improved criminal forfeiture scheme our message to organized crime is clear: crime does not, will not and must not pay in Canada, and we will take all necessary measures to ensure the continued safety of our homes, streets and communities.
Not all provisions of the bill specifically target organized crime groups. Several elements in the proposed legislation are meant to improve criminal law generally. These improvements to the law will nonetheless be extremely useful in combating organized crime.
The offences initially listed as enterprise crimes were those considered most likely to be committed by organized crime groups. Over the years, as organized crime evolved and moved into new areas of criminal activity, new offences were added to the list of enterprise crimes. Today the list of such crimes stands at over 40 with no indication that we will stop adding new offences to the list.
At the same time, by limiting the proceeds of crime provisions to certain listed offences, we have created two types of criminal: the criminal whose proceeds are subject to the proceeds of crime provisions of the code and whose illicit profits can be ordered forfeited by the courts, and the criminal whose profits fall outside the reach of the proceeds provisions of the code.
Furthermore, there is a proposal to eliminate the enterprise crime list approach and expand the application of the proceeds of crime provisions to designated offences, that is, to most indictable federal offences. In this manner the profits from the commission of most serious crimes would be subject to forfeiture. All existing protections, such as notice provisions, applications to revoke or vary orders, appeals and remedies, will of course continue to be available to the accused and to third parties.
Canada must be in a position to offer the necessary assistance to foreign countries that have successfully investigated and prosecuted members of organized crime groups and whose courts have ordered the confiscation of tainted property located in Canada. I would like to ensure that Canada is not singled out for its inability to provide the necessary assistance to help such jurisdictions obtain the confiscated property.
Accordingly, the bill proposes a number of amendments to the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act that would allow Canada to enforce foreign confiscation orders. That is important. The provisions contained in the proposed legislation would allow Canada to respond on the basis of a treaty to requests from a foreign jurisdiction for assistance in enforcing a confiscation order issued by a court in that jurisdiction in relation to proceeds of crime derived from the commission of a criminal offence for which the accused was convicted. In anticipation of a confiscation request, Canada would also be able to provide assistance in respect of a request to seize or restrain the targeted proceeds located in Canada.
The proposed amendments would also facilitate requests from Canada regarding the enforcement of restraint or forfeiture orders for proceeds of crime located in foreign jurisdictions.
The last element that I want to stress deals with offence related property. The bill contains amendments to make the offence related property forfeiture regime in the code apply to all indictable offences. As well, the present exemption from forfeiture for most real property would be eliminated.
I believe the measures I have outlined today would ensure that we have the tools necessary to combat the increased threat of organized crime. Let there be no mistake that the proposals before us would provide more effective laws and aggressive prosecution strategies to target organized crime at all levels.
I thank colleagues for their support of this initiative. I look forward to their support because the initiative would ensure that our streets and communities are safe from a most pernicious element within our society, organized crime.
Organized Crime April 5th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, after consultations with provincial and territorial counterparts, police, prosecutors and the subcommittee on organized crime, my colleague, the solicitor general, and I introduced aggressive new measures and announced new resources to fight organized crime.
Among other things, the legislation would target participation in criminal organizations, improve the protection of those who work in the justice system from intimidation, simplify the definition of criminal organizations and broaden the powers of law enforcement officers to seize proceeds of crime.
We are sending a clear message that this government stands with the police and prosecutors who are an aggressive—
Criminal Code April 5th, 2001
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-24, entitled an act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)