Evidence of meeting #49 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offences.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I'd like to call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to order.
As noted on the agenda and the order of reference for Wednesday, October 4, we have Bill C-18, an act to amend certain acts in relation to DNA identification.
Before we get into this specific discussion, though, there is some other committee business we need to attend to. It's a notice of motion from Monsieur Ménard.
I think everyone has a copy of that motion.
Go ahead, Monsieur Ménard.
9:05 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chair, the motion I've introduced is further to the testimony we heard — as you'll remember — at the time of the summary of Bills C-95 and C-24, and to the consultations I've had with Montreal police representatives. It has four objectives. And I'll be introducing a minor amendment that I'm going to explain to you.
First, I was very surprised to learn that the existing definition of criminal organization — that is to say a group that is not randomly formed, of three persons or more, one of the members of which commits serious offences, punishable by a prison term of more than five years, resulting in a material benefit, especially a financial benefit — does not cover the phenomenon of drive-by shootings.
This morning, for example, the Montreal police will be holding a press conference. Six crimes like the one I've just described to you have been committed since the start of the year. I don't need to tell you that that's also true in Toronto and Vancouver. I think we have to amend the definition of criminal organization to include acts by members of street gangs and that we wouldn't be able to rely directly on material benefit.
That's why it is not my intention to reduce the scope of the definition of criminal organization. However, I believe we should include drive-by shootings in it. For example, there have been 120 victims of street gang confrontations in Montreal in the past 10 years. That was the first aspect.
The second aspect relates to Mr. Bélanger's remarks, that the warrants that police officers obtain for GPS systems, which are a device used to follow a car, must be harmonized. This isn't wire-tapping; you can't intercept communications. However, it makes it possible to follow a car's movements and to link individuals to each other. It's very useful for making demonstrations in court.
By way of a third point, I'd like to introduce a minor amendment. The idea is that there obviously are more specialized prosecutors. We're winning the battle against organized crime because Crown attorneys have agreed to specialize. That takes two, three or four years of work; you have to be aware of that.
I think there'd have to be specialized attorneys in connection with street gangs. They have to know their modus operandi, how the individuals who belong to street gangs operate. However, I won't be talking about money because I wouldn't want the government to feel bound. We could remove the reference to the $5 million fund. The government could just make a sufficient fund available to the attorneys general of the provinces, over five years, to help them train specialized Crown attorneys. I wouldn't refer to any amount in particular.
In addition, I've learned that the government made specific amounts of money available to the City of Toronto to train Crown attorneys. I wonder whether Montreal, Vancouver and other communities could benefit from that. It's not that we want to be “Montrealists”, but that's a reality.
For the rest, the fourth part of the motion is obviously that the government establish a data base, a Web site where all court decisions and evidence gathered in all street gang trials would be available to all stakeholders. I want to be clear on this, since I took the trouble to state it: all stakeholders, in my mind, are police officers, Crown attorneys and obviously the ministers concerned, but not necessarily defence counsel.
At the trial stage, the Stinchcombe decision will apply and everyone will obviously have access to the evidence. However, I think that the immediate stakeholders, that is to say the police, the public department and the Department of Justice should have access to a secure file.
That, Mr. Chair, is the gist of my motion, even though you're not listening to me, which obviously gives the impression that we're an old couple. I hope that the proposal to withdraw the $5 million fund will help make everyone more comfortable.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
In view of the clarifications made by my colleague, would he agree to allow paragraph 4 of his motion to read as follows:
That the federal government implement a highly secure Web site accessible exclusively by police officers; federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers; and Crown attorneys, with links to the following:
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
It would have to be really clear that the Web site is highly secure and accessible exclusively...
9:10 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Excellent. I accept the friendly amendment.
And in paragraph 3, we delete the words “$5 million” and replace them with the words “a fund sufficient to assist them in training Crown attorneys [...]”.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I spoke just briefly to Mr. Ménard before the meeting started. I have concerns. I spoke to Mr. Bartlett, from the department, about this on Tuesday. His impression was the same as mine with regard to the first paragraph and the first suggestion.
I know this is not Mr. Ménard's intention, but it might again be one of those unintended consequences in terms of limiting the scope of section 467.1. I support the intent behind making drive-by shootings a specific target of that section, but not limiting the rest of the section.
We just have to be careful about the wording. I'm not sure if it's necessary that we actually change this. I assume that for the department, in drafting an amendment to the code, it would be clear that we're not limiting the scope of that section. That's my concern, and it's Mr. Bartlett's as well.
I'm just putting this on the record because I think it's a valid concern. The department should watch for it when they're drafting this, in order to carry out the intent of this paragraph.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Looking at the suggestions made by Mr. Ménard, it seems, number one, that he has put a lot of thought into this. However, there are sometimes unintended consequences.
I don't know if I'm totally clear yet on all the amendments. You mentioned changing the $5 million over three years to an appropriate amount. Is that what you said, Mr. Ménard?
9:10 a.m.
Bloc
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
And then Mr. Ménard has accepted Ms. Jennings' amendment. That raised the same concern with me. On the idea of a website that gathers evidence, as a kind of clearinghouse or a deposit for all of this evidence, could it somehow be breached, or could that create more unintended consequences, such as the one Mr. Comartin pointed out?
From my perspective, there are a lot of new ideas here, and a lot of things that we should discuss. I don't outright have any problem with anything Mr. Ménard has put forward for discussion, but I would be hesitant to adopt a motion like this without having heard evidence specific to the motion.
In my view, it would be responsible for the committee to hear some evidence regarding the motion before we make a recommendation to the government. I know Mr. Ménard may have had discussions with Montreal police or some other groups, and that those discussions may have led him to come up with these five recommendations, but I certainly haven't heard that evidence in a committee setting. I'm wondering what his thoughts are on that.
9:10 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
My purpose is to give police officers tools. I don't understand Mr. Comartin's reluctance. Is it because he has the impression that that would change sections 467.11 and 467.13? In any case, under section 467.12, it's not necessary to derive a financial benefit. That only appears in sections 467.11 and 467.13.
But how would we be committing an imprudent act by saying that criminal organizations, the characteristics of which we know — it doesn't have to be a randomly formed group; it has to consist of three persons who have committed offences punishable by a prison term of more than five years, and the group or one of its members has to derive a financial benefit — that have also committed offences without deriving a financial benefit are also included. How are we taking a risk if we say that, in addition to all the foregoing, people who, in addition to meeting these criteria, but who also commit offences without deriving a financial benefit, are included? I don't see how that limits the scope of the definition.
I remind you that drive-by shootings are the main way in which street gangs operate. I admit I don't understand the hesitation, but I'm ready to receive an amendment. If Mr. Comartin wants us to amend that, that's no problem for me.
Second, from what Sergeant Ouellette and the witnesses have told us, the judgments rendered in all Canadian jurisdictions don't circulate readily. It would be interesting to see to what extent the Bonin judgment rendered by the Court of Quebec, Criminal Division, is known to the attorneys of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. The evidence used in the judgment, and everything that was filed, would be entered in a secure central registry, as Ms. Jennings said, for justice stakeholders. I don't see how that isn't an area that isn't solid.
Now if it is not the wish of committee members to vote on the motion, I am prepared to move it, and we can hear witnesses on the subject. That's not a problem for me, but I admit that I personally didn't think it was something that required us to hear witnesses. However, if that's the committee's wish, I'm prepared to move it and for us to send for witnesses.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Given how this committee usually operates, it's not really our style to just adopt something as potentially complex as this.
I realize these things are not off-the-wall suggestions; they come from real situations, and I know Monsieur Ménard himself has done plenty of consultation in generating these.
With a view to avoiding unintended consequences, where our recommendations might seem peculiar in the new light of day and in different circumstances, I'm wondering whether we could alter the wording to read--and it happens often in Parliament, where this wording is inserted, where we urge the government to consider the advisability of (a), (b), (c), and (d), rather than our concluding now that these suggestions, as drafted, are exactly what is needed.
That allows the government to consider the advisability, to consider them in a proper context, and then respond to the committee, provide a reply in the appropriate time in responding to our report.
I'd be very happy to support that kind of an approach, where we altered the wording to say, “the committee urges the government to consider the advisability of...”.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
I would make it clear that I think most of the sections, with the exception of the electronic surveillance that Mr. Ménard is bringing up, deal with the definition of “criminal organization”. It deals with “participation in activities of criminal organization”, including numerous sections on prostitution and “commission of an offence for criminal organization”, as well as “instructing commission of an offence for criminal organization”.
Most are very complicated, and I would have to suggest that those who drafted these particular sections went through a substantial amount of research and discussion to put them together.
Mr. Moore.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Following what Mr. Lee was saying, is he suggesting an amendment that would read, “Pursuant to Standing Order 108.(2), the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights recommends...”, and then following that, “...the government consider the advisability of...”?
As I said before, without the benefit of my hearing substantive testimony on each one of these four things, I'd be more comfortable with the wording that Mr. Lee is proposing.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Monsieur Ménard will be next; then I think we'll conclude this particular discussion, given the fact that the minister will be appearing at 9:30.
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chair, if it is the wish of committee members to agree to the motion with Mr. Lee's amendment, I'll be very pleased.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative