Justice committee  It's not quite that simple. If the person actually instructs them to go and carry out a murder, then they would be a party to the murder, pursuant to the party liability offences under the Criminal Code. In that case we're not using section 467.13 of the code, but the fact that they are guilty of the offence of murder as party to that murder.

Justice committee  Yes, we're doing so to ensure that these orders are made in all but the relatively rare cases where a judge might exercise the residual discretion not to make the order. But the proposal is that they should, in the ordinary course, be made whenever there's a conviction for one of these offences.

Justice committee  This would add the three new offences that are being created in this bill to the primary designated list. When an offence falls within that primary designated list, the judge is instructed to make the DNA order but is left with some residual discretion. We're not changing the DNA scheme, and frankly, the discretion that's available to the judge in the case of a primary designated offence is relatively small, but there is that small element of discretion.

Justice committee  If they participate in a murder that's done for the benefit of the criminal organization, and they're instructing somebody to commit the offence for the benefit of the criminal organization, yes. Just as the person committing the murder is guilty of first degree murder, so is the person instructing them, knowing that the purpose of it was for the benefit of a criminal organization.

Justice committee  An example would be any case in which a weapon was used--a knife or a firearm. Often if a firearm is involved, it may be a more serious offence, but a knife might be a common weapon used in those kinds of assaults that actually cause the officer some significant bodily harm. Common assault involves a very wide range of things that constitute an assault on the officer, but when they actually cause any significant bodily harm, if someone uses a weapon, that would be a more serious offence.

Justice committee  First of all, Mr. Murphy, the particular offence, the drive-by shooting offence, does not have to have a direct material benefit link. I think there's a misunderstanding about where that element of the definition comes into play. It's only part of the definition of whether or not there is a criminal organization in existence.

Justice committee  There is already an offence in the Criminal Code, section 467.13, for anyone—not necessarily a gang leader; it can be people farther down in the structure of the gang, assuming it has a structure—who instructs somebody to commit an offence for the benefit of a criminal organization.

Justice committee  The bill would apply exactly that same penalty as was applied in the Tackling Violent Crime Act to a group of eight offences, including section 244, discharge of a firearm with intent to harm someone. This offence is very close to that offence and bears the same penalty, with the distinction that there may not be evidence that they had a particular target.

Justice committee  There are certainly some areas where the technology is probably not readily available to local police forces. It's one of the reasons this provision requires that the Attorney General make the request for that particular condition. It's to ensure that the necessary facilities are available in that area.

Justice committee  Regardless of whether it can be shown that a drive-by shooting is connected to a criminal organization, this proposed offence would make it a mandatory minimum of four years in jail if you can show that the shooter fired a gun with reason to believe that he was running the risk of killing somebody.

Justice committee  Monsieur Ménard, there is no provision in the Criminal Code currently that makes any murder related to gang activity first degree. If the murder is planned and deliberate, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with a criminal organization, then it is of course first degree.

Justice committee  I don't think there's any information that seniors are targeted for a particular kind of identity theft. They certainly are targeted for some of the end-use fraud schemes. There are fraud schemes that appear to have been fairly carefully tailored to target seniors. Undoubtedly, they're probably somewhat more vulnerable to the earlier stages as well, the actual techniques that are used to gather the identity information.

Justice committee  The crown would ultimately still be required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The offence covers possession, and if they can prove the possession beyond a reasonable doubt.... The reasonable inference that the information is intended to be used eases the burden on the crown somewhat, and at some point may shift the burden of adducing evidence to the accused, but ultimately the trier of fact will still have to be satisfied of all of the required elements of the offence.

Justice committee  Yes, attempts are dealt with generally in section 24 of the code. Whenever there's an offence, there's also an applicable offence of attempting to commit that offence, and then there's case law that's built up around that. You have to take certain steps to effect your intent. It can't be just a matter of pure intent.

Justice committee  As the minister noted, the bill deals with all of the aspects of the chain of acts that lead to what in the bill is called identity fraud, where you actually use false identity to commit a fraudulent offence, the collection of the information with that intent. There are provisions dealing with the instruments you can use to create a false identity, and then the final end-use offences.