Pierre Jacob

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as Bill C-394, presented by my colleague the member for Brampton—Springdale, reaches third reading.

Bill C-394 amends the Criminal Code to create a new offence in relation to organized crime, namely recruiting a person to join a criminal organization. The NDP supports this bill as part of a response to the problem of gang recruitment, particularly of young people.

Upon reading the text, we find that the bill was amended by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. One amendment adds the concept of coercion to the new offence. The others are designed to ensure consistency between the English and French versions, and in the terminology used in the Criminal Code. The bill was examined for three hours by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

As a member of the committee, I had an opportunity to hear valuable and thought-provoking testimony, and to question witnesses. I also had an opportunity to take part in interesting exchanges with my colleagues on the committee. The phenomenon of recruitment, mainly of young people, by gangs presents a real problem, which calls for a balanced public safety approach, that is an approach combining prevention and enforcement.

In the NDP, we believe that this bill contains part of the answer to the problem, but in committee we pointed out that the creation of a new offence amending the Criminal Code with the addition of section 467.111 is the outcome of a private member’s bill, not a government bill. The government should make changes to its policy to deal with street gangs. Let me pursue this point further.

The street gang phenomenon is so important in our country that the government should adopt a strategy to deal with these criminal organizations. The government should find effective solutions for the problem of recruitment by criminal organizations.

Representatives of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada came to testify before the committee. This Canada-wide organization provides guidance and assistance to young Canadians who are marginalized or in difficulty, work that is essential to social cohesion in our country.

I would like to quote Marlene Deboisbriand, vice-president of that organization, regarding the importance of these clubs in Canada:

Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada is a leading provider of quality programs that support the healthy development of children and youth. Our association of over 100 clubs reaches over 200,000 children, youth, and their families across the country. We are in 500 community locations from coast to coast to coast.

These representatives emphasized the need for funding for prevention programs:

We are not opposed to Bill C-394. Our concerns are mostly related to the need for enhanced prevention efforts....and rehabilitative programs for youth who want to rebuild their lives outside gangs.

The testimony given by Rachel Gouin of Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada was very compelling. She addressed three important points.

First of all, is it very important that public authorities take a comprehensive approach to the complex phenomenon of the recruitment of young people into gangs. Targeted punitive measures like this one, combined with adequate police action to catch people who are recruiting, would be best. However, these measures must be accompanied by programs and social services geared towards housing assistance, mental health support and employment assistance.

Secondly, recruiters are sometimes children or teenagers themselves. As Ms. Gouin said in her testimony, the scope of this bill does not apply to them. Children and youth have their own criminal justice system, under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The third point, which is related to the first, is the importance of continuity of funding for prevention programs that target both those likely to do the recruiting and those likely to be recruited.

The Youth Justice Services Funding Program helps the provinces establish rehabilitation services for these people. It is regrettable that budget cuts have affected this program.

The presentation by Manitoba's Attorney General was also very important. The NDP paid close attention to what he said. Our only amendment to the bill, presented in committee, came out of this evidence. The Attorney General said:

...we believe Bill C-394 could be improved by being applied to anyone recruiting in places where youth are expected to gather, the very places I think all of us want to keep safe, such as schools and schoolyards, community centres, friendship centres, and parks—places where we want it to be safe for young people to go.

The NDP presented an amendment concerning sentencing. It would ensure that the court take into consideration elements of proof establishing the recruitment of someone under 18 into a gang, near a school or community centre, for example, as aggravating factors. Our excellent amendment was hotly debated and the Conservatives unfortunately decided to reject it.

The NDP has always been proactive when it comes to public safety. On the one hand, we want more money for crime prevention programs. On the other, we want police forces to have the resources needed to adequately protect communities across Canada. It is therefore important to continue to collaborate with the provinces, the territories and first nations.

In closing, this bill is a solution to the problem of recruitment by gangs, but it is not the only one.

We support this bill. However, we are asking the government to do more. An approach that strikes a balance between repression and prevention must always prevail when it comes to public safety.

[Criminal Code, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Brampton—Springdale.

At the very moment when his government claims to be effectively combating crime—gang recruitment, in this case— how does he explain the termination of the police officers recruitment fund in 2013, which will lead to a dramatic drop in the number of frontline police officers in our municipalities?

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his welcome comments.

In fact, the only way to fight crime, and in particular terrorism, is to hire more police and more border services officers in order to strengthen security at airports and everywhere else. Simply saying things and making systematic cuts left, right and centre, as I said earlier, is not going to enhance public safety.

So it is still a question of image. Whether it is the Liberals or the Conservatives, it is all the same thing.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question, which reminds me of a proverb: You should not bite off more than you can chew.

That is the case here. The government says it wants a wide sweep of measures, but it is forgetting about the charter and it is forgetting that there are rights and there are regular citizens. We do not have 38 million terrorists in Canada.

My colleague asked a good question about the Liberals. As usual, I get the feeling that the Liberals signal left, but end up turning right. That is what they have done again here, in terms of respecting rights. That is disappointing, considering that they claim to be the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to rise in the House to discuss Bill S-7, and I do so with enthusiasm.

The NDP opposes this bill at third reading. We believe it is an ineffective way to combat terrorism. It also needlessly and inappropriately infringes on all our civil liberties.

The constituency I represent is situated near the United States and borders on Vermont and other states. I am particularly concerned by the lack of security that this government is championing. I entirely support the members for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin and Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. In their view, the government is deluding itself in posing as champions when they make cuts left, right and centre to the national security budget. Those cuts will amount to $687.9 million by 2015.

The Canada Border Services Agency has suffered $143 million in cuts, which will affect 325 direct jobs at Canada's border crossings. CBSA’s intelligence service has been hit hard, losing 100 positions and 19 sniffer dog units as a result of the budget cuts. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has also had $24.5 million in cuts, and the RCMP has been subjected to reductions of $195.2 million.

Budget 2013 only exacerbates this state of affairs since there will be a 29.8% reduction in spending between 2012 and 2013 and into 2014.

Budget 2013 therefore does nothing to offset the Conservative government's inability to protect Canadians adequately. It also has not renewed the joint emergency preparedness program. The budget does not renew the police officers recruitment fund despite repeated requests from the provinces, which want front-line police officers, those capable of preventing terrorism and arresting terrorists, to receive ongoing assistance from the federal government.

There has also been a $20.3 million cut in crime-fighting, which represents a $2.4 million reduction in national security spending.

The department itself has stated that the infrastructure of the Government Operations Centre could be incapable of supporting coordinated intervention if a major event occurred. I will stop listing the cuts made by the government because there are too many and I do not know how to continue.

For all these reasons, we believe that Bill S-7 violates civil liberties and human rights, particularly the right to remain silent and the right not to be imprisoned without first receiving a fair trial. In the spirit of those rights, the weight of the state should never be used against individuals to force them to testify against themselves.

We also believe that the Criminal Code contains the necessary provisions to investigate people who engage in criminal activities and to detain anyone who may present an immediate threat to Canadians. The fact that those provisions were never used between 2001 and 2007 is proof of that.

Our opposition is based on the belief that these measures are ineffective and pointless. We believe that our position is based on values dear to Canadians. There is a lack of balance here between security, which is absolutely necessary, and fundamental rights. More protection is provided by the 2001 version.

In meetings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we tried to improve the bill by proposing 18 amendments—not one, not two or three, but 18 amendments. The Liberals and the Conservatives did not propose any.

The bill would impose a prison sentence of up to 12 months as well as strict release conditions on people who have not been charged with any criminal offence.

We, however, believe in the fundamental values of our justice system. The fact that these provisions were invoked only once, and without success, proves that the police have the tools they need to combat terrorism with existing procedures, without any risk to our civil liberties. The provisions of this bill could be invoked to target certain individuals, for instance, people taking part in demonstrations or acts of dissent that have nothing to do with any reasonable definition of terrorism.

We proposed a number of amendments. Here are some examples of the amendments we brought forward that were dismissed out of hand, because it was decided that they were outside the scope of the bill, because they would require a royal recommendation or for no reason whatsoever.

We wanted SIRC to look at the possibility of an inter-agency co-operation protocol to ensure that rights protected by law would be effectively respected. We wanted that protocol to be put in place before the leaving the country offences could come into effect.

We also proposed an amendment to ensure that testimony gathered from investigative hearings could not be used against an individual in extradition and deportation proceedings, not just in criminal proceedings. Once again, the government said that this did not fall within the scope of the bill.

We then proposed an amendment to establish the right to state-funded legal aid if a person had to attend an investigative hearing. We were told this would require a financial amendment from the House committee.

Lastly, we proposed an amendment to ensure that the annual reports included detailed information on any changes to the legislation, policies and practices related to exit information or exit control. This was also deemed to be beyond the scope of the bill. All our amendments were systematically rejected.

I want to inform the House that many witnesses appeared before the committee and wholeheartedly supported our position. Carmen Cheung, a lawyer for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, said:

...we urge the committee to refrain from further expanding the powers of our national security agencies until appropriate and effective accountability and review mechanisms have been established. We believe that strong and robust oversight mechanisms are important not only for protecting human rights and civil liberties; they are crucial for ensuring that our national security policies and practices are effective.

In conclusion, the New Democratic Party believes that we must look seriously at the issue of terrorism, but not at the expense of rights and freedoms. Bill S-7 is a threat to the rule of law and human rights, notwithstanding the additional protections in the 2001 legislation, which have gradually been eliminated.

Once again, all of the amendments to strengthen the rule of law and human rights were rejected by the Conservatives. They do not care at all. For all these reasons, we will oppose this bill at third reading.

[Renaissance Brome Lake, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I participated in an event put on by a local organization, Renaissance Brome Lake.

This organization is made up of people who are concerned about protecting and restoring an ecological gem—Brome Lake. Nearby residents can enjoy this magnificent body of water at various times throughout the year.

In partnership with researchers and biologists, Renaissance Brome Lake has increased public awareness of the fauna in this area, which includes eight wetlands and various tributaries.

This lake plays a part in the economic vitality of the surrounding municipalities. Mr. Speaker, I invite you to visit this magnificent area, starting with a round of golf on one of the three courses around Brome Lake. Afterwards, you could stop for a while at Douglass Beach and then make your way to the Knowlton marina.

Congratulations to this organization on the work it does to protect the environment.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his excellent question.

I would say that it is a basic function of the law to ensure that a bill respects the charter and the Constitution. My colleague from Gatineau spoke about access to justice. Not everyone can go all the way to the Supreme Court. It is also a question of time and money.

Whenever possible, we must ensure that the laws passed by Parliament are adequate and meet the constitutionality test. In our society we have the rule of law and it is important to respect that.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, not only in the House of Commons but also in committee, the government would do well to work with the opposition in order to improve legislation. My hon. colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek said that about 30 time allocation motions have been imposed. This really undermines democracy. Committee meetings are being held in camera, and witnesses and amendments are being systematically rejected. This will not serve to improve bills.

I hope the members opposite will listen to the truth.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I like the correction. The government could do so much better. It could not do any worse than what it is currently doing.

Instead of systematically rejecting any amendments or proposals made by key witnesses, the government should work with the opposition to improve these famous bills, like it did, as though with a knife to its throat, for Bill C-55.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-55.

First of all, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Gatineau and official opposition justice critic, as well as all of my colleagues, in particular the members for Brossard—La Prairie and Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, who have been working diligently to bring these matters forward.

I want to start by saying that we support this bill because we have the public good at heart. Respect for privacy, accountability, proper oversight, the rule of law and respect for the Constitution and the charter are extremely important to us.

The member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek noted that the government has moved time allocation close to 30 times. Time allocation is not used in committee, but causes that we espouse are systematically rejected along with many amendments that we bring forward. A climate of co-operation does not usually prevail.

Things were different this time as far as co-operation goes. However, the government had a knife to its throat, so to speak, because of the looming April 13 deadline. In R. v. Tse, the Supreme Court directed the government to provide safeguards related to the authority to intercept communications. The Court declared that interceptions made under section 184.4 without a prior court authorization were unconstitutional.

The bill requires the Minister of Public Safety and the Attorney General of each province to report on the interceptions of private communications made under section 184.4. It furthers provides that any person who has been the object of such an interception must be notified of the interception within a specified period. It narrows the class of individuals who can make such an interception and limits those interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

I would remind the House that this new Bill C-55 is simply an updated version of wiretapping provisions that the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional. New privacy safeguards have been put in place. We believe the bill meets the standards in this area.

The Conservatives have a less-than-stellar record when it comes to privacy. That is why we took steps to ensure that this bill respected as much as possible the rule of law, the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This bill comes on the heels of the Conservatives’ abject failure with Bill C-30. This piece of legislation failed to meet the charter test because it was not properly crafted.

The Conservative government is making a desperate attempt to comply by the April 13, 2013 deadline with the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Tse.

Section 184.4 of the Criminal Code provides for safeguards, notifications and reports. Firstly it would require that a person whose private communications have been intercepted in situations of imminent harm be notified within 90 days. Secondly, it would require that annual reports be produced on the use of wiretapping under section 184.4. These amendments would limit the authority of police officers to use these provisions and would limit interceptions to offences listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code.

The problem is that the current section 184.4 violates section 8 of the charter. Not enough thought went into it. It does not contain accountability measures to ensure proper oversight of police officers as they exercise the authority conferred upon them.

The court therefore called for some accountability measures which were introduced in Bill C-55. Among other things, this is the reason why we support this legislation.

I would now like to turn my attention to the prior notification requirement. The bill also requires that persons who are the object of interceptions be notified. Section 195 also makes it a requirement to report to Parliament, including producing reports on the use of interceptions under section 184.4 of the Criminal Code.

For all of these reasons, we will be voting in favour of the bill because it attempts to strike a balance between personal freedoms and public safety considerations. However, the question is why it took the government so long to act. Bill C-55 is a step in the right direction, but why is the government not working together with the opposition at all times to resolve problems and improve proposed legislation?

Where justice is concerned, our priority is ensuring respect for the rule of law, for Canada’s Constitution and for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not for any political agenda.

Michael Spratt from the Criminal Lawyers' Association testified in committee in March 2011. He supported this bill. He felt that it was fair and constitutional and did an admirable job of incorporating the Supreme Court of Canada's comments from R. v. Tse. Mr. Spratt confirmed that the recurring theme is the balance between the protection of the public and the protection of privacy.

The Canadian Bar Association submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights also indicated that, overall, the CBA is in favour of the amendments the bill proposes to comply with the ruling in R. v. Tse.

A representative of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Raji Mangat, also said that this is a sensible and necessary privacy bill. She is pleased that Bill C-55 limits the application of warrantless wiretapping to circumstances in which the goal is to prevent the commission of an offence.

The notice requirement provides transparency and serves as an essential check on this extraordinary power to intercept communications without judicial authorization. This bill also includes reporting requirements in order to increase oversight in the use of warrantless wiretapping by police.

For all of these reasons, we agree with the committee witnesses that this remedies the problem. The government missed the mark with Bill C-30, but has made the necessary changes.

I am wondering about something and I will end on that note. Why does the government not work with our committee to improve other bills? The government should not just work with the opposition only when the Supreme Court puts a knife to its throat. The government must work with the opposition in the months and years to come. This would be a win-win situation for Canadians, as well as in terms of the rule of law and respect for the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.