44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 17, 2024 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-381, the protection against extortion act.
As we all know, extortion is increasingly impacting Canadian communities. We recognize and acknowledge that extortion is a very serious crime that can impact multiple facets of a person's life. Bill C-381 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that the sponsor believes will combat extortion by reinstating a mandatory minimum penalty. I will focus my remarks today on the proposed amendments related to the penalty regime and sentencing.
As it currently stands, we have a robust criminal law framework to address the crime of extortion. The offence of extortion is covered under section 346 of the Criminal Code, and it is a straight indictable offence that carries significant penalties. These penalties are intended to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the responsibility of the offender. If an individual is convicted of extortion, they will be subject to the maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. I want to emphasize this: The maximum penalty for extortion is life imprisonment.
Bill C-381 also proposes to direct courts to consider, as an aggravating factor, if that offender, in committing the offence of extortion, also committed arson. We recognize that arson is a serious crime that poses a danger to a community and the public, and there is unquestionable intent to cause damage to property. While there is no doubt that the combination of extortion and arson is damaging and dangerous, I question whether this change would have any meaningful effect.
It seems to me that, if there is evidence that someone committed arson and extortion, then a prosecutor would seek convictions for both. If they do, then the proposed aggravating factor becomes meaningless. Moreover, treating an element of an offence for which an offender was convicted as aggravating at sentencing was found to be an error in principle in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Lacasse in 2015.
Arson can have devastating impacts to individuals and businesses. As with cases of extortion, the seriousness of the offence of arson is reflected in the current criminal framework to address crimes of this nature. Individuals convicted of arson are subject to maximum terms of imprisonment ranging from five years to life, depending on the circumstances.
Along with the offences contained in the Criminal Code, the sentencing regime addresses the seriousness of extortion and arson as it relates to organized crime. Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code sets out aggravating factors that a sentencing judge must take into consideration when crafting an appropriate sentence. One of the codified aggravating factors is evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization. Given that extortion crimes often imply a level of sophistication that suggest the workings of criminal enterprise, this factor gives sentencing judges the ability to impose penalties that fall on the higher end of the spectrum in cases where organized crime is involved.
A court must also consider the victim's extortion when crafting an appropriate sentence. The sentencing regime sets out that it would be particularly aggravating if an offence has a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, such as their financial situation.
I would also note that Bill C-381 proposes enacting more mandatory minimum penalties. We have had ample evidence over the years that MMPs do not work. I do not want members to take my word for it, either. They can listen to Ben Perrin, legal adviser to former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper. He has stated that “[mandatory minimum penalties] are a grave policy failure and cheap politics.”
Mr. Perrin goes on to say, “If history is any judge, [the Leader of the Opposition's mandatory minimum penalties] may not be worth the paper they're printed on. What's worse, even if they do pass constitutional muster, they will only exacerbate the existential challenges facing the criminal justice system.” Mr. Perrin also said that the Leader of the Opposition's “idea may actually backfire, leading to more crime in the long term.”
Again, these are not my words. Those are the words of the former legal adviser to Stephen Harper. This is the man who advised Stephen Harper on justice policy, who has now seen the problems caused by reckless Conservative Party criminal justice policy.
Our government believes in evidence-based policy, and we know this is simply not that. The Leader of the Opposition likes to throw around such phrases as “stop the crime”, but he has no real plan to do that. As we often see from him, it is just a series of slogans.
On this side, we actually believe in policies that will reduce crime. We also know that mandatory minimum penalties have a disproportionate effect on Black and indigenous people in the justice system.
Data from Correctional Service of Canada shows that the disproportionate impact of MMPs on indigenous peoples and Black Canadians has also been reported in admissions to federal correctional institutions. Specifically, of all admissions to federal custody between 2007-08 and 2016-17, 39% of Black offenders and 20% of indigenous offenders were admitted for an offence punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty. Here, the proportion for indigenous offenders increased from 14% in the same year, 2007-08, to 26% in 2016-17.
The proposal brought forward by the hon. member is unlikely to result in higher sentences being imposed, given the serious penalties already associated with arson and extortion and the corresponding aggravating factors I referenced earlier.
Our existing legal framework provides judges with the tools and discretion needed to tailor sentences that reflect the gravity of the offence by the offender. While there is no doubt that extortion is a serious crime, our current legal framework is such that extortion is being addressed in a way that reflects its severity and harmful effects.
We need to focus on serious policies rather than empty slogans and policies we know will not work. I encourage all hon. members to work together on policy that will combat crime rather than failed policies and slogans.
1043 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this feels a bit like Groundhog Day. I have sat in the House since 2015, and there is a recurring debate between the Liberal and NDP vision of opposing mandatory minimum sentences and the Conservative vision of applying this policy to as many offences as possible. I think we need to reflect on the issue, which is no small matter, but we also need to find ways to be effective, to adopt legal rules, legislation and regulations that are in line with the values of the society in which we live.
The Bloc Québécois is opposed, in principle, to systematically adding minimum sentences to the Criminal Code. Prison time is often essential, and our courts do not hesitate to use it to punish numerous offences. However, there are other penalties, other solutions besides prison, that exist and that deserve to be considered.
It is certainly not a question of being more tolerant when an offence is committed. On the contrary, we believe that the values we hold must be reflected in the laws we adopt and that these laws must be enforced and complied with by all. When our rules are broken, a fair and consistent consequence must follow. However, we must never forget to be imaginative when we think about how our justice system should be structured. Might I suggest that we be daring? We are here to legislate.
The Bloc Québécois believes that our justice system must help build a functional society that effectively brings together a safe, equitable and fair system for everyone. It is our responsibility as legislators to put in place laws and regulations that ensure that all people can walk the streets freely and safely.
What a great success it will be if we manage to stamp out crime one day. I am too old to believe in unicorns, flying horses and other magical creatures, but I will never stop working to make our society better. That is why we believe that when people break our laws and must be sentenced, we must always strive to rehabilitate them wherever possible. Rehabilitation is not a magic pill; it is an objective.
Our job as members of this legislature is to find ways to punish those who should be punished, prevent them from doing harm and, if possible, get them back on the right track. Last year on January 13, the 13 provincial and territorial premiers wrote a letter to the Prime Minister to remind him of his duties in this regard. They called for a reverse onus on bail for the offence of possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm. Obviously, we need to take that into account and be vigilant.
The question remains: How do we take effective action? The Supreme Court of Canada struck down many of the mandatory minimum sentences passed by a previous Parliament. The situation had to be fixed. Many minimum sentences were abolished. However, our Conservative Party colleagues keep demanding at every opportunity that we reinstate these minimum sentences in the Criminal Code. I could let this behaviour bother me, given that, as I said at the outset, the Bloc Québécois is not a big fan of mandatory minimum sentences. Instead, I choose to take it as a call to work, an invitation to examine the issue of how to enforce our laws and impose the most appropriate penalties on offenders.
In committee, I proposed an alternative to minimum sentences, something that would reconcile the neo-liberal or “liberal-democrat” vision, that is, the vision of the Liberal Party and the NDP, with the position at the other extreme, in other words, the position of our colleagues in the Conservative Party.
Why not include a provision that would allow courts to depart from the mandatory minimum sentences when exceptional circumstances allow? We would then have the minimum sentences some people want so badly, but we would also have a safety measure, a safety valve, that would allow a judge hearing a case to determine, in certain circumstances, that the mandatory minimum sentence is inappropriate. By justifying the exceptional circumstances, courts could waive the mandatory minimum sentences. Is this the best solution? Probably not. There could be others. However, it is one solution, and I think it deserves to be considered.
There is another possibility. Why not consider adjusting the sentences to include a transitional period during which the inmate could be released, but required to wear an electronic tracking device? For example, for a one-year sentence, the person could spend a year, a year and a half or two years behind bars. The period could be discussed. Then the inmate could be released, go to work, carry on with their social and family activities, resume a “normal” life, or as normal a life as possible, but under constant surveillance.
How could this individual get away with resuming their criminal activities under that sort of surveillance? What criminal organization would want to use the services of such a compromised individual? According to the statistics, when a member of any criminal organization is sentenced to three, four, five or 10 years of prison, that person is almost automatically taken back as soon as they are released. They are told that they have served their time and can come back to work. For example, they may be asked to go get three Mercedes from Westmount and two Ladas from another neighbourhood.
However, if the individual were wearing an electronic monitoring device when they were released, I am not convinced that the most powerful criminal organizations would want to use that individual's services. That is another option, a second alternative. Once again, is it the best option? Maybe it is or maybe it is not, but it is worth considering.
As I was saying, I am going to consider our Conservative colleagues' invitation to address the issue of minimum sentencing as an invitation and opportunity to think about and work on improving the Criminal Code.
The Bloc Québécois is therefore willing to send Bill C-381 to committee and work on bringing it into line with the values of safety and security, justice and appropriate consequences for wrongdoing, while seeking to create a better society in the short or medium term, in other words, a society made up of law-abiding people and, when necessary, people who have been rehabilitated.
1083 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to add a few comments to this discussion tonight, which is a very important discussion. When we talk about community safety, safety for all Canadians, it is critically important that we all participate and that we ensure that we have given it our full attention.
On Bill C-381, I am going to read out what it is, so that anybody who is watching will get a better feeling and understanding.
Bill C-381 would amend the offence of extortion to create a mandatory minimum penalty of four years where a firearm other than a restricted or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence, and a minimum sentencing of three years in any other case of extortion. There is already a mandatory minimum for when a restricted or prohibited firearm is used and the offence is committed in association with organized crime.
This bill, from my hon. colleague from Edmonton Mill Woods, would repeal the requirement that extortion committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization be committed with a firearm, meaning that MMPs of five and seven years would apply to any case involving organized crime. This bill would add an aggravating factor at sentencing when the person convicted of extortion also committed arson.
It is an important bill and one that I am very confident my colleague from Edmonton Mill Woods thought about very carefully before presenting it as his private member's bill. Clearly his community, in particular, is the subject of a lot of extortion, according to what we read in the newspapers and so on. I think that the bill reflects his frustration and concern with our justice system overall, which many of us feel. It does not always play out the way we would like it to on a variety of different cases.
I do not think it deters anyone, but I know that it certainly makes the member who put this forward as his private member's bill very interested in trying to find the solution to an ongoing problem.
Extortion is illegal in Canada today. Perpetrators need to be apprehended and punished, without question. There is a mandatory minimum penalty of seven years for a repeat extortion with a firearm. These penalties show just how seriously the Criminal Code takes this behaviour of extortion. We do not want to see extortion happening in Canada and we do not intend to tolerate it.
Serious crimes will always deserve very serious punishments. That said, it has been proven time and time again that overly harsh mandatory minimum penalties on first-time offenders do not deter crimes. I wish it did, but clearly the evidence is that it does not. I have been here quite a few years and was here when the previous Conservative government introduced mandatory minimums. I remember when we had that discussion and debate at committee and in the House. I was always a bit on another platform because I thought that if that is going to work, then way to go; that is what we need to have.
Over the years, we have seen, unfortunately, that it does not work. It does not work the way the Conservative Party, when it introduced it, thought it would. It has played out very differently. The previous legal adviser to former prime minister Stephen Harper has recently admitted that the harsh approach to criminal justice is ineffective. To quote him, he has said that the mandatory minimums “are a grave policy failure and cheap politics.”
Again, I go back to the fact that when it was introduced, I was very supportive. I thought it was going to be an answer to try to deter some of the crime, but it did not work that way. We ended up having people without the flexibility to be able to look for alternative sentencing opportunities to truly prevent recidivism from happening. We have seen that it is ineffective at reducing crime, and that it actually increases recidivism.
We have often been told that, once someone goes to jail, it does not matter what amount of time they spend there, repeat offenders are what follows so many times. It does not necessarily help.
I think people know my history. I have pretty strong feelings when it comes to guns. I had a first cousin who was a police officer who was shot to death. I signed petitions for the death penalty in those days. That was then and I have learned a lot since then.
On the fact that I was able to get I do not know how many thousands of signatures calling for the death penalty, a lot of that was because I was hurting and in pain as a result of having that terrible thing happen to my cousin and the killing of this young, 32-year-old police officer with three young children.
I have always taken a very strong stance when it comes to the justice issue, and I want to see our justice system stronger and better and more effective. Is this particular bill that has been put forward going to help with that? I do not think so, but that is what committees are for, which is to have further discussions and talk about the pros and cons of all of it. Any time we look at ways in which we can reduce recidivism and crime in our country, it is a good thing to do.
I will go back to Mr. Perrin, the previous legal adviser to Prime Minister Harper, who said, “If history is any judge, [the current Conservative leader's] MMPs may not be worth the paper they're printed on. What's worse, even if they do pass constitutional muster, they will only exacerbate the existential challenges facing the criminal justice system.”
As my colleague from the Bloc mentioned previously, there needs to be meaningful innovation, ideas for different ways of handling things. We have not been awfully successful so far in finding ways to deter serious crime. We know we have organized crime happening in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal when it comes to the stealing of vehicles, which are being shipped out through Montreal primarily. They arrested, I think, 19 people involved in that particular part of it. Thank God we have police officers who spend the hours they do out there on the streets, trying to ensure our cities can stay safe.
We are all looking for answers, but we need to be able to provide judges with the flexibility to make a decision on what they want to do. There are serious offenders out there who need to be dealt with appropriately. Plea bargains are not the way to go with most of these cases. With any of these things, especially if we are talking about extortion, we want to make sure offenders are dealt with. Right now, the Criminal Code calls for very serious penalties on that aspect, so we want to do whatever we can.
If the bill goes to committee, it will give us an opportunity to talk more about how MMPs do not appear to work, but are there other opportunities? What else can be done? Maybe this is a way we can really send a very strong message that Canada is not going to tolerate extortion happening to any community. In this case, as was referred to earlier, it was the South Asian community being subjected to extortion.
We have an obligation to stand up and push against that and to protect communities that are being intimidated, belittled and threatened. Members of those communities come to Canada to start a new life and to be able to have a successful business, and they should not have to worry about being extorted.
This has happened in other communities, not just the South Asian community. There are a variety of communities that are being extorted, and I have heard of it happening within the Italian community some time ago.
We need to have strong penalties. Extortion needs to have, and it does have, a very strong policy right now in the Criminal Code. We want to see that continue. This will be discussed at the committee if it gets to the committee level, and in further discussions it would be very interesting to hear whether there are any new ideas and ways in which we can make our Criminal Code even stronger than it currently is today.
I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this bill.
1441 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
