Daniel Petit

[Business of Supply, April 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think that what has just been mentioned is nonetheless important. I refer to the beginning of the motion: “should negotiate in good faith”. We must work on good faith and harmonization. I conclude that the member for the Bloc is accusing us of not acting in good faith. Consequently, our minister, who is the Conservative member who now has the floor, has a right to defend the good faith of our government. That is part of the motion. I would like all members to recognize that our good faith is also at stake and not only harmonization.

[April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the government has taken several steps such as implementing programs and introducing Bill C-14 to do his part in curbing gang violence in Canada. The government has always been committed to ensuring the safety and security of Canadians, and I trust that the opposition supported the passage of Bill C-14.

Federal public servants are continuing to work closely with their provincial and territorial counterparts to examine issues related to organized crime and gangs that arise or become pressing, develop strategies to prevent and deter organized crime and gangs, and identify areas that would benefit from legislative changes designed to make our criminal justice system as efficient as possible.

[April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the adjournment debate on this important issue.

Recently, British Columbia has been hit by a wave of gang-related violence. Nearly every day, we hear about gang-related shootings that take innocent lives and make people afraid to go outside. Over the past few weeks, more than two dozen shootings, nine of them fatal, have taken place in the greater Vancouver area.

The Government of Canada recognizes that organized crime and gang-related activity still threaten safety on our streets and in our communities. The government is taking legislative measures to put an end to this.

The government has invested in crime-prevention activities targeting at-risk youth, activities that focus on gangs, guns and drugs. Young gang members commit many crimes; they are responsible for many more serious and violent crimes than young people who do not belong to gangs.

More specifically, the gangs, guns and drugs priority of the Department of Justice's youth justice fund has $2.5 million each year to carry out crime prevention programs across the country. Since 2006, 38 projects have been funded in a number of communities, including Toronto, Vancouver, Fort Qu'Appelle, St. John's and Montreal, that wish to reduce activities related to gangs and the recruitment of young people who, in the opinion of the justice system, are considered to be participants or are likely to participate in activities related to guns, gangs or drugs.

There is also the youth gang prevention fund, which is managed by the national crime prevention centre. This fund has a budget of $11.1 million and implements community intervention initiatives for youth who are in gangs or at risk of joining gangs.

In terms of law enforcement, the government has also allocated $64 million, under the national anti-drug strategy, to help law enforcement agencies to combat drug trafficking, which is the main activity of organized crime.

Bill C-14, introduced on February 26, 2009, contains proposals that will provide solutions to a number of problems related to gang violence, including increasingly bold acts of armed violence committed by street gangs.

Bill C-14 addresses the problems of drive-by shootings and the discharge of firearms with intentional disregard for the life or safety of another person. This new offence carries a minimum mandatory sentence that can be increased if the offence was committed for the benefit of a criminal organization or with a prohibited or restricted firearm.

With this bill, all murders closely tied to organized crime will be first degree murders, even if they were not planned and deliberate. It will also strengthen provisions with respect to gangs keeping the peace so that it is easier for judges to impose conditions that they believe will help prevent an individual from committing an offence for the benefit of organized crime.

In closing, I wish to tell members that this bill represents a solid and measured response to the threats that firearms and gangs pose to Canadians.

[Justice, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, we can always count on the Bloc members for surprises. They surprised us by being the only ones—yes, the only ones—in this House to vote against families and, just recently, against children as well.

The Bloc voted against Bill C-268 sponsored by my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul, which will protect children from criminals who try to abuse, exploit, hold and even sexually assault them.

It is always surprising to see that the Bloc can find ideological reasons to oppose everything, even common sense and harsher sentences. The Bloc members really must be living on another planet if they believe they are defending the interests of Quebec and its youth by refusing to vote for a bill that would protect our children.

Under the circumstances, we can understand why the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup wants to leave the Bloc as soon as possible.

[Criminal Code, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interest in Bill C-14 whose purpose is to protect the public.

The citizens of his riding will be pleased, since they too want to feel safe. We are here to work together to ensure the safety of all our citizens. Many people say that mandatory minimum sentences will leave judges with very little flexibility; however, we must bear in mind that they are meant to send a clear message to criminals, specifically, that we are serious and we condemn certain actions, such as drive-by shootings and intentional discharge of a firearm.

We have seen some complacency in the past. We, however, intend to show that we are taking serious action against organized crime. When people involved in organized crime see that Parliament is beginning to give in, it grows stronger. When they see that Parliament and parliamentarians will not give in, that we are taking a stand, they are the ones who will give in, and that is our goal.

[Criminal Code, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague through you. We both sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and his extensive experience as a former police officer is truly appreciated. He presents the viewpoint of the officers who enforce our laws.

I would like to point out that the committee will be going to Vancouver, where organized crime is flourishing, because of a special request from British Columbia. There are gunshots on the streets and drive-by shootings there. The situation is so serious that members of the Chamber of Commerce, a non-governmental organization, are asking Parliament to visit to see how dangerous the city has become.

I would like to mention something else in reply to my colleague's question. Despite everything that is being said, our government is pursuing two objectives. Addicts will get treatment but traffickers will be jailed. Canadians must realize that. We will heal drug addicts but we will put traffickers in jail. That is for sure.

I would also like to say, in response to my colleague's question, that our government has provided a great deal of money to help addicts. We are not going to lock up addicts; we are going to heal them. I can assure you that our government will lock up traffickers. We are known for being very strong in that area. That is what we must do and that is what the citizens of Vancouver have asked us to do. For that reason we are going to Vancouver to see for ourselves whether organized crime is truly becoming stronger. We want to eliminate sources of income for organized gangs, the mafia and such groups by combatting the drug trade.

[Criminal Code, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his interest in this bill.

His question is quite fair and appropriate. People from his province, British Columbia, have appeared before our committee. Representatives from the Vancouver Board of Trade told us that they wanted specifically to attack the element that is contributing to the wealth of all forms of organized crime, whether the Hells Angels, the mafia, and so on. We must attack the drug trade; that is important. If we cut off those organizations' source of revenue, if we are tough on that, if we can stop the drug trade, we will prevent such groups from operating, growing and terrorizing our communities. That is what we need to do.

[Criminal Code, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in today’s third reading debate on C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants). I am pleased to note that the bill was adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights without amendment.

The Government of Canada recognizes that organized crime, including gang activity, continues to pose a threat to the safety of our streets and communities, and Bill C-14 is part of our strategy to address this problem. This bill proposes amendments to strengthen the Criminal Code’s responses to organized crime. Most notably, it is taking direct aim at the increasing use of violence committed by organized crime. With these amendments, we are demonstrating our commitment to improving the safety and security of communities across Canada.

I am pleased to note that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights met March 30, April 1 and April 20, 2009 and heard from the Minister of Justice, officials from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics and a range of stakeholders, including representatives of law enforcement, prosecutors and the Canadian Council of Defence Lawyers.

Bill C-14 proposes amendments in four broad areas.

First, it makes all murders connected to criminal organizations automatically first-degree murder, regardless of whether they were planned and deliberate.

Second, it creates a new offence to target reckless shootings involving the intentional disregard for the life or safety of another person.

Third, it creates new offences to respond to assaults against peace officers which cause bodily harm or involve the use of a weapon and the aggravated assault of a peace officer.

Fourth, it amends the gang recognizance provision to clarify that a judge can impose any reasonable conditions and to lengthen the period of the order to 24 months where an offender has been previously convicted of a criminal organization offence, terrorist offence or intimidation of justice system participant offence.

The bill received very strong support from almost all witnesses appearing before the committee. The proposed amendments to make all murders committed in close connection with organized crime automatically first degree, regardless of whether the murder was planned and deliberate, was well received. As you know, those convicted of murder receive a life sentence, but those convicted of first-degree murder are ineligible for parole for 25 years. In the case of second-degree murder, it is 10 years.

The committee heard evidence from officials from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics confirming that gang-related homicides are on the rise in Canada. In 2007, there were 594 homicides in Canada and 117 were gang-related. The committee also heard evidence from a prosecutor from Quebec that this amendment would be useful in securing first-degree murder convictions in gang homicides, regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate.

As to the second key element of Bill C-14, the creation of a new offence to address drive-by and other reckless shootings, this would be accomplished by prohibiting the intentional discharge of a firearm when in so doing the shooter turned their mind to the fact that doing so could put the life or safety of another person at risk.

There have been claims during committee debates that this offence is redundant and already covered by section 244 of the Criminal Code. This proposed offence is different from the existing and equally serious firearm offence, section 244, because it does not require proof that the shooter specifically intended to cause bodily harm to a person, something which I understand can be difficult to prove in certain cases.

The proposed offence is punishable by mandatory minimum penalties, which increase when the offence is committed for a criminal organization or if it involved a prohibited or restricted firearm.

The proposed mandatory minimum penalties did have the support of the prosecutors and law enforcement representatives, who saw the penalties, including the mandatory minimum penalties, as significant and important tools for prosecutors and law enforcement in the fight against organized crime.

However, the issue of the proposed mandatory minimum penalties was not universally supported. The Canadian Council of Defence Lawyers had concerns with the use of mandatory minimum penalties. As well, the proposed mandatory minimum penalties was the object of a motion to amend by the Bloc Quebecois that would have deleted the mandatory minimum penalties and left only the maximum penalty of fourteen years imprisonment. This motion did not carry.

I would like to take a moment to explain Bill C-14's proposal to have a mandatory minimum penalty for this offence. First of all, the penalty scheme of the proposed drive-by shooting offence is consistent with the overall penalty scheme of the Criminal Code. There are already a number of offences involving the use of firearms where mandatory minimum penalties apply, such as attempted murder and assault with a weapon.

Second, section 244, the existing offence of “discharging a firearm”, already carries a mandatory minimum penalty of four years, and the proposed offence is modelled on section 244. It would have created an inconsistency in the Criminal Code to have no mandatory minimum penalty in the new offence to address drive-by shootings but still have one in the existing section 244.

There should be no mistake about the government’s position, as reflected in Bill C-14: we need to take steps to address the lethal combination of guns and gangs. As an aside, I would also like to mention that the officials from Statistics Canada indicated that nearly 69% of gang-related homicides were committed with a firearm. In contrast, only 20% of non gang-related homicides involved firearms.

The third key element of this bill is aimed at providing increased protection for peace officers and responding to violence committed against other justice system participants. It does this by creating new offences to prohibit assaults against peace officers which cause bodily harm and aggravated assaults against peace officers. These offences are punishable, on indictment, by a maximum period of imprisonment of 10 and 14 years respectively.

These amendments were also supported by prosecution and law enforcement officials and viewed as necessary and useful. In addition, this 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 assaults against peace officers, as well as cases involving the intimidation of justice system participants, such as judges, prosecutors or jurors. This sends the right message and demonstrates the seriousness with which Parliament treats such acts that undermine the rule of law and the criminal justice system generally.

The fourth area of reform in this bill relates to the gang peace bond provision, which are preventive court orders requiring an individual to agree to keep the peace and to abide by other specific conditions. These amendments would clarify that, when issuing a recognizance order or a promise to keep the peace, a judge can impose any conditions that he or she feels are necessary to secure the good conduct of the defendant. The amendments would also extend the maximum length of the order from 12 months to 24 months, if the defendant had been previously convicted of a criminal organization offence. These amendments also relate to those who are suspected will commit a terrorist offence or an intimidation of justice system participant offence.

These elements of Bill C-14 offer important tools because they seek to prevent the commission of organized crime offences before they take place. They can be an extremely useful tool for police in controlling gang activity, and these amendments will ensure that the orders are used as they were intended.

Police in Ontario use these provisions as part of their gang strategy to control the “small fry” in a gang. The prosecution witness that the committee heard from suggested that Quebec will start using this new provision in Bill C-14 as part of its own street gang strategy.

I am pleased that Bill C-14 has been thoroughly examined by the justice committee and that we are rapidly approaching our goal of seeing this legislation passed into law.

This government has made the safety and security of Canadians a priority. I am confident that Bill C-14 is a strong and urgently needed step in the right direction and I urge all honourable members to support its passage.

[Replacement Workers, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, today we are again debating the issue of replacement workers.

On several occasions, the members of the opposition have tried to persuade this House to pass measures that would prohibit federal employers from using replacement workers during a work stoppage.

Our government has opposed various bills in the past, and today we continue to oppose this new motion presented to the members of this House, that is, motion No. 294.

I would give the Bloc Québécois members a perfect score for the persistence they show in raising this question, and I know this persistence stems from their passionate conviction that they are right about this issue.

The essence of this motion brings us back once again to previous bills that have already been debated in this House. Indeed, the principle of this motion is no different than the objectives of the last bill on the matter, Bill C-415.

It is important to note that the Canada Labour Code is already very specific on the matter of responsibility of federal employers and unions in the event of a strike or lockout.

At present, the code does not impose a complete ban on the use of replacement workers during a work stoppage. However, the use of replacement workers with a view to undermining the union’s representational capacity, rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives, is prohibited and constitutes an unfair labour practice.

In addition, it requires the parties to maintain the services necessary to prevent immediate and serious risk to public health or safety. This applies to all employers under federal jurisdiction.

The opposition members go on about the fact that two provinces, Quebec—my home province—and British Columbia, have had a ban on replacement workers for some time.

They claim that labour relations are more harmonious in those provinces than in others or in areas under federal jurisdiction when it comes to strikes and lockouts. Like most generalizations, I doubt that claim would withstand closer scrutiny.

Indeed, in 2005 and 2008, in other words, very recently, Quebec had the highest strike and lockout rate in Canada. So how can anyone claim that the ban on replacement workers has improved the state of labour relations?

I would like to raise some other issues that deserve further attention.

Every time we debate the issue of replacement workers, we make a point of referring to the broad experience on which the member of the Sims task force based their report which led to major changes in the Canada Labour Code.

We should point out that the experts did not reach agreement on the matter of replacement workers and wisely decided not to recommend that their use be totally banned, unless used for the purpose of undermining the union's representational capacity, according to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.

The previous government is responsible for introducing the current provision in the Canada Labour Code, and we agree with its decision with respect to the bills which sought to ban the use of replacement workers. It felt it was preferable to take the stakeholders' opinions into account and not to make arbitrary amendments to the labour legislation when there was no urgent reason to do so.

As hon. members are aware, the counterbalance to labour's right to strike is management's right to try to continue operations during the strike. When there is no collective agreement in place, the employer can do everything necessary in order to maintain its activities, provided of course that it does not violate the representational capacity I referred to just now.

In a unionized working environment, however, the two parties have opposing interests, but the employer certainly has the right to keep the business open.

On the other hand, if a labour union deems that its rights have been violated in any way whatsoever, it may file a complaint with the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.

However, we know that the board receives very few complaints, and in the majority of cases management and labour agree to renew the collective agreement and the complaints are withdrawn. As for the complaints not withdrawn by unions, the board felt that, in most cases, there had been no illegal use of replacement workers.

Major employers under federal jurisdiction do not use replacement workers. What is more, the changes to the code proposed in the motion would be a threat to small and medium businesses, the ones most likely to suffer from long closures.

This therefore leads me to conclude that the present system is working and does not need changing. I cannot support this motion and I would encourage other hon. members to follow suit.

[Child trafficking, April 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec, like the rest of Canada, is faced today with crimes against the most vulnerable members of our society: our children. We have a duty to protect our citizens by using all of the tools available to us to protect families, and especially the children who represent our future.

Nevertheless, the Bloc voted against the interests of Quebec youth by voting against Bill C-268, thereby turning its back on basic human values.

The Bloc was the only party to vote against that bill, the purpose of which is to impose a minimum sentence for offences involving the trafficking of persons under the age of 18 years.

Yet they boast that they are defending the interests of Quebeckers. Will the under-18s be sacrificed by the Bloc? Turning their backs on youth protection, that is the Bloc way.