Lost his last election, in 2000, with 6% of the vote.
Gun Control April 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the justice minister failed to answer the question. Yes, he has taken this property from Canadians, but the question was why he has not compensated them. That property was legally acquired and lawfully held.
How can he say that he stands for the rights of Canadians when he takes their property from them without compensation? How can he do this? Will he answer the question?
Gun Control April 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the justice minister has advised Mr. Sheppard of Calgary, Alberta that he will not be compensated for the loss of his private property. The justice minister's order in council which prohibited Mr. Sheppard's firearm forced this Calgarian and thousands more Canadians to turn over their property to local authorities without compensation.
How can the Minister of Justice seize property that was legally acquired and lawfully held without compensation?
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
Mr. Chairman, I have one final question. I want to go back to the youth application. In light of what the justice minister has told the committee with regard to the manner in which this new bill is applicable or not applicable to young offenders, would he consider an amendment to the YOA that would extend the transfer to adult court of any offence the penalty of which holds a maximum penalty in the code of more than five years?
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
Yes.
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
All right. Then I will move on to the offence related property which is the final grouping. The justice minister touched on it in his earlier testimony. I would like him to advise the committee the difference that this will make over the laws that presently exist. Could he enlighten the committee on the change that this new bill brings in.
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
It is pretty clear that young offenders who are gang members, simply because of the transferability of some of these offences-and it is a narrow series of offences that Bill C-37 covers-that this new offence does not apply in youth court. It only applies in adult court. On the penalty, what difference does it make? Unless it applies to adults who are using youths, as they did in the Ace Crew organization, that gang that led to the torture and the death of at least one individual, and the individual was left in youth court and received only a three year penalty for manslaughter, which would have been much higher had he been transferred to adult court.
It is very clear then that this new penalty and by and large the act itself, does not apply to anyone heard in youth court.
I would ask the minister this question. If an adult was charged for committing an indictable offence, and the punishment was more than five years, and it could be proved that the individual was a member of a group, association or other body, and the other four people that made up the organization were youths, would the definition still apply?
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
If we want to split hairs, then I will put it this way. If the judge says that the young offender has to be tried in youth court, then he is immune to the penalties provided in this new section. Is that right?
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
Mr. Chairman, if the court decides on this reverse onus that the justice minister brought in with Bill C-37, that the individual should not be tried in adult court, then they are immune to this law.
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
Mr. Chairman, if I gather what the minister is saying, at least the penalties cannot apply to young offenders unless they are transferred to adult court. Is that true?
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
Mr. Chairman, there seems to be an anomaly here that youth gangs could still be sentenced under the Criminal Code and that this additional sentence which will be served concurrently under this new section can be applied only if the individual is tried in adult court. Am I correct in saying that? Is that my understanding of what the justice minister has told the committee?