Jack Ramsay

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1997]

Yes, but there are more parts to this clause that I would like to discuss with the minister if that is in order, Mr. Chairman.

The DNA bill came about as a direct result of the member for Wild Rose assuring the justice minister that he would have our support if they moved forward on that bill. It was as a result of that initiative that the DNA bill came forward because it was clear, simple and straightforward.

With regard to this bill, a little 11-year old boy died two years ago. There is no question in my mind that we had enough time to bring this bill forward and give it the due diligence it should have had. I am still concerned that we have not had witnesses from both sides. I would like to hear from prosecutors and ask them some of these questions, those who stand in the courts each day and have to bear the weight of providing evidence to bring forward the conclusion that they want. I would like to hear what they have to say.

I appreciate the time we are taking but it is not the same as having witnesses come forward with the various perspectives that this bill should have before we go forward with it. We are here because we do support the thrust of this bill.

I am concerned with the vagueness of some of the terms we have dealt with. I want to deal with more of them. There is a vagueness that is left to the courts to interpret. We know what happened with Bill C-41 on the conditional sentencing issue. Even the justice minister himself admits that rapists should not be walking free, yet that is the manner in which that law is being interpreted and administered by judges across the country.

When we say we will leave some of these definitions or these words to be defined and interpreted by the courts, we have had unpleasant experiences in the past that I do not think are in the best interests of society.

Nevertheless, I would like to turn to (b) of that first clause at the top of page 3. It states:

any or all of the members of which engage in or have, within the preceding five years, engaged in the commission of a series of such offences;

There is another word without definition and that is "series". What does that mean? What did the justice minister mean when he placed that word within this statute?

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, then I will not make that amendment at this time.

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, once we move beyond this can we come back to these various sections to make amendments?

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1997]

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Inasmuch as this section is not unlike the conspiracy laws that are on the books, I would be prepared to move an amendment to reduce the number from five to three.

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1997]

Not unless it will be supported by the government. I would be prepared if there were support. We do not have the testimony of the witnesses. We can only go on what the minister is able to recall in terms of consultation.

I am concerned about the enforceability of the section. If it would make it more practical in terms of enforcement to reduce the number to three, I would be prepared to make the amendment.

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, did the police chiefs indicate they would support reducing the number from five to perhaps three?

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1997]

I am looking for information concerning any objection or concern raised about either the constitutionality of the sections we have dealt with or the enforceability of them. I am primarily concerned about both issues, but enforceability is very important to me.

Bill C-27 deals with child sex tours. Renowned legal minds tell us that although it looks good and it sounds good it is practically unenforceable.

What objections, if any, did the justice minister receive with regard to concern over the constitutionality and the enforceability of what we have covered so far?

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, to what extent were crown prosecutors and defence counsels beyond the justice department consulted as to the viability of the bill in their opinion?

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, we have not gone further than subsections 1(a) and 1(b). I understand the whole thing is in clause 1, right down to clause 2. We are dealing with not only what we touched upon but the criminal organization offence and the offence related to property.

To what extent has the department gone outside to get advice and consultation regarding the constitutionality of what we have addressed so far, which is the criminal organization in subsections 1(a) and 1(b)?

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, if in order to avoid being designated a criminal organization groups did break down into four, the onus of proof would still remain to connect the groups. The onus of proof as contained in this section is still there and is still in force. The onus upon the crown would be just as onerous or difficult.

With respect, my question has not been answered. I do not know what we do when we drop one of the five and it is now four. What happens to that designation?

Perhaps I could ask a straightforward question. How long does the designation of criminal organization rest upon an organization?