Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 9, Evidence - May 8, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 8, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which were referred Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment); and Bill C-444, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer), met this day at 10:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bills and for the consideration of a draft budget.
Senator Bob Runciman (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I will throw a bit of a curve at you. Unless there are serious objections, I will reverse the order on the agenda and start off with the consideration of the budget. I am doing that because there is a vote in the House of Commons, and Mr. Gill, who is the sponsor of Bill C-394, is required to be in the house for that vote. We hope he will be here around 11 or 11:15 so that we can deal with that bill at that time.
Has everyone got a copy of the budget in front of them? Please pull that out of your materials there.
Senator Plett: I do not.
The Chair: Can you make sure Senator Plett gets a copy? I will give you a minute to take a look. You should have it; it was circulated. If not, we will get you another copy.
Senator McIntyre, do you require a copy?
Senator McIntyre: Yes, please.
The Chair: I will ask the clerk to run through this — this is pro forma — to see if there are any changes from what we have submitted in the past.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: We've requested funds for hospitality. In the event there are delegations that come to visit, we require funds to order coffee, juice, et cetera.
We have also included funds for the purchase of Criminal Codes. I sent an email to all members about this in March. We had an issue with the supplier; they were unable to fill the order to the amount we needed. Unfortunately, the fiscal year ended, so we're requesting additional funds to get the Criminal Codes for everyone. I have included enough so that in September, if we get new members, we will still have some funds.
Then miscellaneous expenses are miscellaneous and courier charges in the event that we have items that need to be mailed to witnesses, which does happen from time to time.
The Chair: Any questions or concerns?
Senator Jaffer: I move the adoption of the budget.
The Chair: Senator Jaffer has moved the adoption of the budget, as presented.
All in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We will move on to Bill C-444, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer).
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-444, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Are there any observations that anyone wishes to attach to the bill? Seeing none, is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
That was very efficient. I'm going to suggest that we suspend —
Senator Jaffer: Before you suspend, I see that ``Future Business'' is an item on the agenda. Could we deal with that as well?
The Chair: Is there something specific you wanted to —
Senator Jaffer: Yes, if I may?
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Jaffer: I have spoken to you privately about the mental health study from a legal point of view. I know that our schedule is very full, but may I please ask the committee and steering to think about, as some committees do, a subcommittee meeting at a different time? Otherwise, we will never get to the studies because our agenda is always very full.
The Chair: Unless there was another committee you felt could appropriately take on the issue. I don't know if you've looked at that.
Senator Jaffer: It was studied extensively in Social, as you know, by Senator Kirby and Senator LeBreton and the committee. We were looking at it from more of a narrow point of view after our visit. So may I please ask steering to consider that?
The Chair: Yes. Absolutely. We will do that.
Senator Batters: I would also point out that I noted from Senator David Wells' statement yesterday that the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs is also looking at mental health issues, PTSD and that sort of thing.
Senator Jaffer: I happened to be substituting on that committee yesterday. They are looking specifically at veterans and PTSD, not the way we would be looking at it in a wider study. This would be a little different from what they are looking at. I happened to be at the committee when they were discussing it yesterday, so I have some knowledge of it. It was very much to do with veterans and PTSD.
The Chair: You are more looking at the implications with the justice system, essentially?
Senator Jaffer: I don't want to say too much. I was just there for the one meeting, but perhaps resources and things like that. We would be looking at it more from a legal point of view.
I respect that our agenda is very full, but this is something that comes up all the time in our work.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Senator Jaffer, does your comment about mental health concern mental health in relation to the prison system particularly?
Senator Jaffer: Yes, absolutely. That is my point. Thank you for your help. I agree with you.
[English]
The Chair: Anything else? We will recess and return at 11 a.m. Hopefully the member of Parliament or Justice officials will be here so that we can have them come forward at that point in time.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee resumed.)
The Chair: Welcome colleagues, invited guests and members of the general public who are following today's proceedings of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
We are meeting today to begin our study on Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment). This bill amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to recruit, solicit, encourage, coerce or invite a person to join a criminal organization. It establishes a penalty for that offence and a more severe penalty for the recruitment of persons who are under 18 years of age.
To introduce this bill to the committee, I am pleased to welcome the bill's sponsor, Mr. Parm Gill, Member of Parliament for Brampton—Springdale. Mr. Gill, the floor is yours.
Parm Gill, Member of Parliament for Brampton—Springdale, sponsor of the bill: Let me first apologize for being late. Obviously we had votes in the house, something that is out of my control. I think we are going to have another set of votes. The bells are going off at 11:20. I want to apologize in advance for that as well.
I want to thank all of my honourable colleagues for allowing me the opportunity to appear before your committee to talk about this very important piece of legislation.
I would like to begin my submission by outlining some of the practical points of the bill, followed by some supporting research, and then conclude with some personal points on why I believe this legislation is necessary.
First and foremost, this bill is seeking to further protect our youth and our communities by criminalizing the act of gang recruitment. Second, this bill is seeking to provide our law enforcement officials and our justice systems with the proper tools to address gang-related issues. In doing so, this bill will provide prosecutors and law enforcers with the proper tools to address the issue of gang recruitment in communities across Canada.
Each one of us in this committee room and every Canadian would agree that our youth will define the trajectory of this country, and that trajectory will be determined by the types of opportunities our youth are given. Young Canadians today have a sense of vulnerability about them, and I think that all of my honourable colleagues here today will agree that this vulnerability is worth protecting.
Under this new amendment, anyone who, for the purpose of enhancing a criminal organization, solicits, encourages or invites a person to join a criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence, which carries a punishment of imprisonment up to five years. Furthermore, anyone who recruits, solicits or invites an individual under the age of 18 to join a criminal organization will face a minimum mandatory sentence of six months in prison. These amendments will allow our justice system to appropriately hold those who recruit individuals into a criminal organization accountable for their actions.
I would now like to present some research to the committee that helped to support the need for this bill.
In a 2008, a publication by the RCMP found that street gangs in Canada are increasingly aggressive with their recruitment tactics. In a disturbing trend, these criminal organizations are targeting youth under the age of 12 and as young as 8 years of age.
These ruthless gangs pursue our vulnerable youth for several reasons. They know those falling within this age range cannot be formally charged with a criminal offence. They also know that our youth can be easily pressured to participate in a variety of criminal activities. Our innocent and most vulnerable citizens are being manipulated, coerced and at times forced to embark on a life that no Canadian should ever experience.
In 2006, CSIS estimated that the number of street gang members under the age of 30 was approximately 11,000. The report cautioned that this number would continue to grow rapidly over the coming years.
In Peel Region, which my family and I call home, the number of gangs has exploded in the past few years. To give you an example, in 2003, there were 39. Today there are well over 110 street gangs within our neighbourhoods. This means that more young people are targeted and more violence is used.
In 2002, a Canadian police survey on youth gangs conducted under contract to the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada was the first of its kind in this country. This landmark study identified some startling figures that I would like to share with this committee.
Of the 264 Canadian police services surveyed, 57 per cent believe that the youth gang problem is getting worse. Most concerning is the fact that 44 per cent reported that youth gang members have established relationships with larger organized crime groups.
These figures show that there is a need to recognize this problem in Canada and do all we can do as parliamentarians to help law enforcement keep our communities and our youth safe.
While I was in the early stages of drafting this legislation, I took time to travel across our great nation to consult with numerous department and organization stakeholders who are dedicated to working with youth involved in gangs. In these consultation meetings I learned the stark reality that many of these youth who have become involved in gangs face on a day-to-day basis. The vast majority of youth I met with told me that if they had a legitimate opportunity to exit their gang they would do so and that, given the choice, they would not have chosen this lifestyle.
One particular youth I sat down with told me that he had been involved in gangs for over seven years. This individual, this young man, was only 19 years old. He explained to me that instead of school, friends, family and sports, he was robbing drug dealers, attacking rival gang members and selling drugs on the street.
This was a kid who excelled within his criminal organization because that was the only life he knew. I can't help but imagine that his work ethic would have allowed him to lead an extraordinarily successful and law-abiding life. Had this legislation been in place at the time this young man was recruited, his recruiters may have been deterred and his life may have taken a more positive path as a result.
During my consultations in Winnipeg I met with the President and CEO of the Boys and Girls Club of Winnipeg. He told me a story which I believe exemplifies the need for this legislation.
For anyone who doesn't know the Boys and Girls Club, they are a nationwide organization that works with troubled youth in urban areas, and as a result they often come into contact with youth involved in gangs.
The CEO told me that at one of their inner city clubs gang members would wait under the parking garage directly behind the building with the sole purpose of engaging young people as they left the building in the hopes of recruiting them into their gang.
This is only a small example of the tactics being used to target our youth, and we need to provide our law enforcement agencies and courts with every possible tool to ensure that our youth are protected and that these individuals are held accountable for their actions.
This bill was first read in the House of Commons on February 13, 2012. Since then there have been countless instances of gang-related violence across our country. Whether it is Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto or Montreal, time and again the most extreme instances of violence can be attributed to gangs.
I urge this committee to consider the benefits of this piece of legislation in helping to improve the future and well- being of our youth and communities.
I would like to thank the committee again for inviting me here to speak, and I look forward to discussing this bill and answering any questions you may have.
Mr. Chair, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Plett for sponsoring this bill in the Senate and for all of his support over the years. In particular, when I was compiling this legislation I sought his assistance and he was there to provide input. I really appreciate his support and that of all members of this committee.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gill.
Senator Baker: We welcome the witness to the committee and congratulate him for his work in this area. I notice that the Attorney General of Canada also announced that the government supports this bill and did a press release on it.
For those of us who have been at this committee for some time, and in Parliament for some time, first of all the word ``gang'' is not used in your legislation: it's ``criminal organization.'' There's a considerable section of the Criminal Code that deals with criminal organizations and a considerable amount of case law.
I just have one question, and I'll put it to you this way: I'm going to quote from the minister who introduced section 467.11(2)(b) of the Criminal Code before this committee on November 21, 2000. I will note that ``serious offence'' under section 2 of the Criminal Code definitions, in sections 467.11 to 467.13, committing an offence means being a party to it or counselling any person to be a party to it.
I'm taking this from R. v. Beauchamps, 2009, Carswell, Ontario, 4197, Judge Smith of the Ontario court said, at paragraph 18:
When speaking before the Senate Standing Committee on November 21, 2000, Minister of Justice Anne McLellan listed a range of examples of the types of criminal activities engaged in by organized criminal groups that were targeted by the legislation.
Then at paragraph 63 it says:
Minister of Justice Anne McLellan made the following statement which indicated that the government's intention was to criminalize the following behaviour ``[t]aking 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.''
Justice Minister McLellan went on to state that 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 capital.
Given that the minister, in introducing this particular section of the Criminal Code, said that recruiting was a part of the offence, and given that case law — not many cases, but some — have used this section to prosecute those who recruit, where do you see the need to bring in your legislation? I suspect you've been asked this before.
Mr. Gill: Thank you for your question. I obviously, as you can understand, can't speak to the statement that the minister at the time made when she brought forward that piece of legislation. What I can do is assure you that during the consultation process, part of my consultation was also with the minister responsible at the time, his staff and the Department of Justice.
The recruitment element is not covered in the Criminal Code at the moment. I was assured by the minister's staff or the Department of Justice, but also the House of Commons legal department that actually helped me draft this legislation. I consulted many other individuals, stakeholders and law enforcement agencies. None of them are under the impression or believe that recruitment is covered by the section that you mentioned, senator.
What this bill is going to do is allow law enforcement agencies and our courts to hold those individuals recruiting Canadians into criminal organizations. Of course, as a father of three young children and uncle to many nephews and nieces, I am extremely concerned with regard to how gangs are infiltrating our communities and targeting our young people.
Part of the reason I introduced the mandatory minimum sentence of six months for those who are recruiting young people under the age of 18 is to send a very strong and clear signal to those criminals targeting our youth that if you are going to do this, you will be held accountable for your actions.
Senator Plett: Thank you, Mr. Gill, for being here and for taking the initiative to bring this piece of legislation forward. I thank you for the comments that you made and I certainly have been trying to be supportive.
As we all know, mandatory minimums have a long-standing history in Canada and are put into place when the public views a crime as particularly heinous and offensive. I would certainly agree with you that recruiting children into a life of crime which often leads to a death sentence is particularly heinous and offensive.
You and I have spoken to many of the same people across the country on this legislation, certainly police officers. I have spoken both in Toronto and Winnipeg. You have visited Winnipeg and obviously Toronto.
The Winnipeg Police Association, on numerous occasions on this bill, has obviously been very supportive. The gang problem is a huge problem in our city, probably per capita more than almost any city in the country, and especially the issue of recruiting children to commit these heinous offences. Sometimes gang members are using drugs to get children addicted, forcing them to remain in the gang for the promise of drugs or money to buy drugs.
Police in Winnipeg and Toronto acknowledged that this bill is a very powerful tool to have on hand to prevent gang recruitment from happening and to empower youth to report those trying to recruit them into these gangs.
Could you tell us how you feel the law enforcement across the country has reacted to this great piece of legislation?
Mr. Gill: Thank you for the question. During my consultation, of course, I had an opportunity to meet with various law enforcement agencies, police services, across this great nation — as you mentioned, in Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto and some other cities. I got an amazing amount of applause and support because the law enforcement agencies do see this as being a problem.
One of the examples that I highlighted during my remarks is the incident in Winnipeg when I was meeting with the Boys and Girls Club.
I will use a small example to highlight how big an issue this is. There are individuals, members of criminal organizations — or if you want to refer to them as gangs — waiting outside, a few feet from the entrance of the door, and they're targeting these young people as they leave their building. Of course, the organization knows this; of course, the police know this, but there is no tool or mechanism in our Criminal Code for the police to take any action to hold those individuals responsible. There's nothing they can do because currently it isn't a criminal offence.
This legislation will give those law enforcement agencies the necessary tools to hold those individuals responsible for their actions. I have had a great deal of support from law enforcement agencies across this country, and I'm very thankful for that. I'm really hoping that this makes it through the Senate pretty soon and receives Royal Assent and becomes law.
Senator Plett: You also met with many stakeholders, not just law enforcement. You have had many meetings with constituents and Canadians across the country. Could you tell us how, generally, the bill has been received by stakeholders? Has there been mostly support for the legislation as you have travelled across the country?
Mr. Gill: There is not a single stakeholder or constituent or Canadian whom I met with during my consultation, or since, who hasn't supported this piece of legislation.
During the process, I sent out a survey to every single household in my riding, just to get input from my constituents. You would be surprised; around 90 per cent of my constituents supported this legislation. They believe this is a necessary piece of legislation that we need to bring forward in order to protect our youth.
I also use the example in the region of Peel, where, in 2003, we had approximately 39 gangs that Peel Regional Police was aware of, and right now we're well over a hundred.
This is a growing problem. This is an issue that we need to tackle head on; and unless we do that, it is going to get out of hand. Ultimately, this affects our future, our youth, our neighbourhoods and our communities that are being terrorized by these gangs. I'm really looking forward to passage of this piece of legislation.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much, Mr. Gill, for your presentation. I come from Vancouver, so this certainly is an issue that we deal with on a regular basis.
My question is in a similar vein to that of Senator Baker. I believe this offence is already covered in the code, but you have given your answer, so I will go on to another question.
The other three parts that are covered by the code on gang recruitment don't have a mandatory minimum. Why did you think that it was really important to have mandatory minimum sentencing, just for recruitment?
Mr. Gill: The reason is that, obviously, when I was putting this piece of legislation together, as I mentioned, I travelled throughout the country and met with many stakeholders — those who work with troubled youth, organizations, boards of education, law enforcement agencies, including Canadian citizens and of course my constituents — and everyone believed there needs to be a very strong message sent to these criminals, or these gangs, to them to know that if they do this, there will be serious consequences for their actions and they will be held accountable for it.
We need to send a very clear message. That was the message that I got, and that's part of the reason I introduced the six-month minimum mandatory sentence for those who are caught and convicted of recruiting someone under the age of 18 — and of course up to five years, at the judge's discretion.
Senator Jaffer: I hear you clearly about the street gangs and the youth gangs, and I read the legislation. I may have missed it in the bill; you don't have definitions for ``street gang,'' ``youth gang,'' and of course there are adults as well who recruit. From your consultations, did you decide that it was not necessary to have them? Not that you have to have a definition, but can you please tell me if there were any people who gave you advice not to have definitions in the bill?
Mr. Gill: As you know, the Criminal Code is very complex. ``Criminal organization,'' as you are probably aware, is defined under the Criminal Code. If we wanted to include these different definitions, as you can understand, that complicates the bill even further.
I wanted to make sure that I addressed this issue of the recruitment part that at least covers the ``criminal organization'' that is already defined under the Criminal Code. I understand there are many things that we can do to make our Criminal Code better, and the system.
I also understand my limitations in bringing forward a private member's bill to see what sort of support I can get and what I can comfortably push through the house, and ultimately through the Senate, to get this bill passed.
As you know, private members' bills are rarely passed. They rarely go on to become law. I wanted to make sure that I stay within my limitations. Whatever I can accomplish most with the opportunity that was provided to me, I wanted to do that.
I've just been told by my staff that the bells are ringing. I can be here for another five minutes, but then I will have to run over to the house.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Gill, for your presentation. I have reviewed sections 467.11, 467.12 and 467.13. I agree with you that the code covers the criminal organization part, but it does not cover the recruitment part. The reason for creating a separate offence, therefore, is to bring clarity to the legislation.
Regarding minimum sentences and consecutive sentences, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that it does not apply to young offenders pursuant section 50 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The same would go for bail hearings and parole, all of which are governed by specific rules for young offenders. Would you agree with me that your bill is in line with the other provisions such as 467.11, 467.12 and 467.13?
Mr. Gill: Yes. As you probably know and can understand, I am not a lawyer by profession. However, I did take the time to consult with the Justice Department and the House of Commons legal department to make sure that it complies with all of the different provisions and that it doesn't actually hinder or violate one of the other sections. I have been provided the assurance that it is all in good order, so I will take their word for it.
Senator McIntyre: The bottom line is that as far as young people are concerned, section 50 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act covers them.
Mr. Gill: Yes.
Senator Joyal: I will start with something that sounds like a detail, but I would like to bring to you to clause 6 of the bill. The bill proposes to amend paragraph 196(5)(a) of the act. Do you have the act with you?
Mr. Gill: I don't.
Senator Joyal: You don't. I think there might be an oversight in there. The Criminal Code contains section 196.1(5) (a), which was a new addition in 2013. I think that when your bill was drafted, that act had not yet been voted by Parliament. To be parallel with paragraph 196(5)(a), you should also amend 196.1(5)(a) of the code. Could you check that with your advisers? To make sure what you propose is coherent, that should be added there. It might sound like a detail. It doesn't change the purpose of your bill — on the contrary, I think it strengthens it. However, to be coherent with the code as we amended it last year, that should be done. That's the first point that I would like to ask.
The Chair: Mr. Gill, I know there are a number of senators that want to pose questions. Hopefully, you can return either next week or before the committee goes into clause-by-clause consideration so they can have an opportunity to pursue their questions with you.
Mr. Gill: I would be happy to do that, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: We will be in touch, then. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gill: Thank you very much. Once again, I want to take the opportunity to thank all of my colleagues on this committee for their hard work and for working on this legislation and especially Senator Plett for sponsoring this bill.
The Chair: Members, I'd like to run one other matter by you before we adjourn. Through steering, we have developed a draft report on our pre-study of the Judges Act. I'm suggesting that we consider it and that we move in camera to do so. If there are no concerns with that approach, does the committee wish to go in camera to discuss the draft report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Does the committee agree to allow staff to remain?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to keep a transcript as is usually agreed to?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)