Madam Guay and myself will share the time allowed, Mr. Chairman.
Initially, I was very sceptical about the usefulness of an anti-gang legislation. I always believed that a gang was a group of people who get together to commit criminal acts. If they conspire, let us charge them with conspiracy and let the judge determine the proper sentence in view of the extent of the conspiracy. But eventually, I have been persuaded to accept the principle of anti-gang legislation.
This is because I observed that in some cases it is possible to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a person profits from organized crime although we are unable to identify any specific criminal act. Furthermore, such legislation is a deterrent for ordinary people who provide small services to the gang. The Hells Angels knew very well how to convince relatives to provide some small services. There has to be a sanction for that. Most of the time, when someone like Mom Boucher is found guilty of murder, we do not need to add any other provisions to the act, because he will get the maximum sentence.
In many other cases, it is clear that a drug deal that can be proven in court was committed within the context of organized crime. I know that for you it is difficult to prove in addition that the dealer was part of a criminal organization.
Since you have extensive experience that goes back to before passage of the anti-gang legislation, did you know that in cases of trafficking by a criminal organization, judges used to take this into account and imposed harsher sentences? Is it really worthwhile to go through all the hassle of establishing that the first penalty is insufficient under the circumstances?