House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 36% of the vote.
Criminal Code March 26th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I agree that the legislation needs to move as quickly as possible. I am simply pointing out the unfortunate events that caused a three hour delay.
I have been waiting at least a week to give my speech. It has continually been moved by opposition delaying tactics. Today we have them on board, thanks to our justice minister and his fine work. I thank the opposition for that. I only regret the loss of three hours on a concurrence motion that the opposition supported.
Criminal Code March 26th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is distorting the facts for Canadians. What happened today was a concurrence motion was put forward by the opposition. If the Liberals had voted against three hours of debate on a useless concurrence motion, it would never have passed.
However, what did the Liberals do? They voted for the concurrence motion. They voted for three hours of debate on anything except crime initiatives. That is my point.
The member is correct that the bill will pass out of the House today to committee for one reason. The Minister of Justice shamed the opposition members by rising on a point of order and identifying to Canadians that they were delaying anti-crime initiatives in the House.
Criminal Code March 26th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing that. What I argue is when it came time to vote whether the debate on the concurrence motion should continue for three more hours, the Liberal Party, the Bloc and the NDP all voted in favour to extend it, which delayed further debate on this bill.
What happened is our Minister of Justice stood and shamed the opposition members by drawing to the attention of Canadians that they were delaying the furtherance of this crime bill. Finally, they relented and agreed that Bill C-14 would pass by the end of today. Therefore, I thank our justice minister for having taken that initiative.
I am happy to have the opportunity to speak in strong support of Bill C-14, which proposes changes to the Criminal Code to strengthen our responses to organized crime. Like many Canadians, I have been deeply disturbed by the rash of violence linked to organized crime, and in particular street gangs, and I am pleased that our government has taken this important step towards fortifying our Criminal Code regime in its capacity to respond to such violence.
This bill proposes changes in four areas, and I will briefly discuss each of them in turn. The first area relates to murders. The proposed amendments would make all murders committed in close connection with organized crime automatically first degree, regardless of whether the murder was planned and deliberate.
This bill proposes amendments to section 231 of the Criminal Code to specify that murder is first degree, regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate, when it is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or when it is committed while the offender commits another indictable offence for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization.
Murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and those convicted of first degree murder are ineligible for parole for at least 25 years. In the case of second degree murder, they are ineligible for parole for at least 10 years. Section 231 of the Criminal Code sets out the circumstances in which murder is considered to be first degree. It also states that all murder that is not first degree murder is second degree murder.
I believe these will be very useful provisions, because they will give law enforcement two separate ways to target murders connected to organized crime. These two separate ways cover the broad range of circumstances where murders might occur in the context of organized crime activity.
Bill C-14 also addresses drive-by and other reckless shootings. It proposes to prohibit the intentional discharge of a firearm in circumstances where the shooter turned their mind to the fact that firing the gun could put the life or safety of another person at risk—say in a building, or in an open space—and consciously ran the risk. This offence would be different from the existing, and comparably serious, discharge of a firearm offence in section 244 because it does not require proof that the shooter specifically intended to cause bodily harm to a person. This is something which I understand can be difficult to prove in certain cases and may not be the case at all when the shooter is firing wildly for the purpose of general intimidation. This new offence would be punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty that would increase when the offence is committed for the benefit of a criminal organization or if a prohibited or restricted firearm is used.
I am optimistic that this new offence will assist us in responding to the increasingly brazen violence committed by gangs on the street with firearms.
The third focus of this bill is providing increased protection to peace officers and responding to violence committed against other justice system participants. It does this by creating two new offences to punish assaults against peace officers that cause bodily harm or involve the use of a weapon and aggravated assaults against peace officers. These offences would be punishable, on indictment, by maximum periods of imprisonment of 10 and 14 years, respectively.
To ensure that these cases are adequately punished, the bill would require courts 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, jurors, witnesses and others. This sends the right message and will assist in ensuring that the sentences in these cases properly reflect the serious nature of this conduct.
The fourth area of reform in the bill relates to the strengthening of the gang peace bond provision. These proposed amendments will clarify that when issuing a preventive recognizance order, a judge can impose any conditions that he or she feels are desirable to prevent the person from committing a criminal organization offence.
The amendments would also extend the possible length of the order to up to 24 months if the defendant had been previously convicted of a criminal organization offence. These orders are intended to impose conditions where it is reasonably feared that a person will commit a criminal organization offence, a terrorism offence or the offence of intimidation of justice system participants. A breach of the conditions is a separate offence, subject to prosecution, with a maximum penalty of two years on indictment.
These are important tools because they seek to prevent the commission of organized crime offences before they take place. I understand they can be an extremely useful tool for police in controlling gang activity and these amendments will make them all the more effective.
Of course, strong laws to punish offenders are only part of the picture. We must also be focused on addressing the root causes of how and why persons, particularly young people, become involved with organized crime groups. We know people are targeted by gangs for participation in many crimes, particularly drug trafficking. They may rely upon young persons to commit crimes on their behalf because of the belief that if the young offenders are caught, the justice system will be lenient due to the age of the accused. It is also the way that young people are recruited into the gangs.
Young people, however, are drawn to criminal groups, including street gangs, for a variety of reasons, one of which is to have a sense of belonging for companionship, protection, to be treated with what they see as respect or for money. Criminal Intelligence Service Canada has noted that virtually all street gangs in Canada are comprised of both youth and adult members and associates. Youth gangs also represent distinct entities with approximately 6% of all identified street gangs being comprised of persons under the age of 18.
It is important that we provide young people, particularly vulnerable youth, with alternatives to prevent their involvement in crime. The government has allocated $64 million as part of a national anti-drug strategy to support law enforcement in its efforts to combat the drug trade, and this will be of benefit to our youth.
We all share a commitment to making our communities and the people who live in them safe. Each and every person should feel safe to walk down our streets. This government has made the safety and security of Canadians a priority. This bill is a reflection of that and is a firm but fair response to the threat of organized crime.
Criminal Code March 26th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Surrey North. She has already delivered her 10-minute speech, so my speech will be for 10 minutes.
I would also like to thank our Minister of Justice for having made an excellent point today that finally we have arrived at continuing the debate on Bill C-14, an anti-crime measure against organized crime.
I want to remind Canadians of what actually happened today. We are just finishing three hours of debate on a concurrence motion, wasted time when it comes to what we are trying to talk about, which is anti-crime measures. What happened earlier today is that the opposition parties—
Agriculture and Agri-food March 13th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, as you know, this government stands up for its farmers. Through agri-recovery, we have in fact delivered financial support to P.E.I. potato farmers.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the member for Malpeque is proving that he simply does not know what he is talking about when it comes to agriculture. He is basically full of hot air.
He was wrong on the poultry rejection project. Despite what he was telling the House, the program did start under the Liberal government. I tabled documents a few weeks ago in the House proving just that.
He was wrong on the contingency fund of the Canadian Wheat Board. Despite him stating that farmers were not interested in the losses of the contingency fund, they have indeed been calling for an investigation of Wheat Board's hedging practices. I tabled the response from the minister this very afternoon in committee proving that.
He is certainly wrong when he dismisses the assistance our government has provided to the P.E.I. Prince Edward potato farmers. When abnormal rainfall destroyed potato crops last year, our government reacted quickly and in partnership with the province to put in place the P.E.I. potato assistance program under the agrirecovery program framework, in order to assist producers and reduce the risk of further crop losses.
What did the Liberal government of Prince Edward Island say of the program?
Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque has raised a great many issues with his one question. I am pleased to provide him with details on how our government keeps its promises to the agricultural sector. However, this business of making announcements and not delivering is coming from a Liberal member whose Liberal senators, up until today, were delaying and blocking the passage of our budget bill and thus delaying the movement of money to Canadians. It is a bit rich.
Our government is keenly aware of the economic and financial challenges faced by all Canadians. We do not take these challenges lightly and we keep our commitments to help. Members will see many of these commitments outlined in budget 2009.
I will highlight what we have done specifically for the agricultural sector.
As the member for Malpeque will recall, we announced a new $500 million agricultural flexibility program; a new $50 million to strengthen the overall capacity and improve the profitability of slaughterhouses across Canada; important amendments to the Farm Improvement and Marketing Cooperatives Loans Act, which will make credit available to new farmers, support intergenerational farm transfers and modify eligibility criteria for agricultural co-operatives; that we would work with interested provinces toward local delivery of the agristability program to support improved client service; and a range of other initiatives, including unprecedented new investments to support rural infrastructure and economic development, which will help all rural Canadians, including farmers.
It is clear that our government listens to farmers, recognizes the challenges that they face and delivers on its commitments.
This budget has been much appreciated by farm groups across the country.
From his own area of the country, Merv Wiseman, president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture, said of this budget:
We have a whole new framework that's coming out to spend on some very key areas around food safety, food security...The broad strokes of the program, the basic framework for us as agriculture across the province and across the country is very positive.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture sent out a press release after the budget came out, and it said:
Further positive announcements included the recommitment to the Government's election promise of $50 million over the next three years to expand slaughterhouse capacity within Canada for beef, pork and other livestock producers. The program, which will make federal contributions available to match private sector investments, will support additional livestock slaughter capacity and help ensure Canada has a competitive livestock sector.
What more could the member ask for?
Speaking of the livestock, let me talk a little about that sector. This industry has been heavily impacted as a result of the volatility of the Canadian dollar, high input costs and uncertainty in the American market due to country of origin labelling requirements.
Our government has committed to help the industry and has provided the following assistance. For 2007 and 2007, more than $1 billion is projected to flow to livestock producers through the new business risk management programs, including agri-invest kickstart payments. To date, the livestock sector has also received a total of approximately $570 million using the advance payments program. This is in addition to the measures I just spoke about from budget 2009.
We are standing up for farmers. We have done so much for farmers. I know the member for Malpeque has a hard time keeping up with all of our accomplishments, but I do encourage him to try to stay current with everything that we are accomplishing.
Health March 4th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about accountability. Under the Liberals, food safety was cut in 1994 and again in 1995. If that was not enough, they cut it again in 2005. It is a good thing they were not re-elected in 2006 or they would have cut it again.
This government has committed an additional $113 million to food safety and we have put to work an additional 200 inspectors.
Health March 4th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, food safety has been and continues to be our number one priority. In fact, it was this government that named a very qualified investigator, Sheila Weatherill, to head a federal investigation into this matter, and we look forward to receiving her recommendations.
Canadians are pleased with the actions being taken. In fact, the Ottawa Citizen said:
The appointment of Sheila Weatherill...to head a federal probe into last summer's deadly listeriosis outbreak is a welcome step to restoring confidence in Canada's food safety system.
Poultry Rejection Program February 27th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, I was just about to list the other documents contained here. I will take me but a moment.
There is a letter on the CFIA letterhead, which is dated April 5, 2005, and an internal CFIA memo, dated April 11, 2005, which refers to the next steps forward for the project. I am also tabling three recent internal reports on the project, as well as a timeline summarizing the poultry rejection projection program.
It is all right here, Mr. Speaker.