Thank you very much.
I have a question for Mr. Bartlett, but I want to make a comment on the testimony by the two police officers.
We love the work you do. You protect us and provide public safety. But I'm somewhat concerned that you would advance a position...yet you have no in-house legal opinion, even, to support that position, as to whether or not what you are advancing is legally feasible, given the charter, given general principles of due process--even without the charter.
I want you to make a comment on it. I'm not making a personal criticism. Obviously your organization supports what you're doing. I would like to know whether or not it's appropriate for you, on behalf of your organization, to advance a position when you don't have an in-house legal opinion from some counsel you might have or an eminent scholar, because obviously we are bound by the rules of due process.
To Mr. Bartlett, if you say that list is not feasible...and I can understand that. My view would be that the list might not be feasible, even without the charter. Criminal law has evolved over centuries, or over 150 years or so in Canada. Even without the charter, I think it would be impossible to box in a definition. But if you didn't have a list, would there be any other legislative means by which we could define the scope so that it would become easier to deal with the criminal organizations in terms of seeking convictions?