No.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 56% of the vote.
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
No.
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
Mr. Chairman, this statute is for criminal organizations. I do not know enough about the facts of the case. The member keeps referring to that one case. I would prefer not to talk about a case that is still before the courts.
We are not dealing here with one person committing one offence on an isolated basis. We are talking about criminal organizations which are five or more people dedicated ruthlessly to a life of crime and committing a series of such offences over the last five years.
Then we are talking about criminal organizations and criminal organization offences.
One person committing one offence on a specific occasion is not intended to be caught by this bill.
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
Mr. Chairman, we have to unravel that and put it another way. I think I have the member's point but I do not think we can relate it to that particular crime. It was not alleged that there were other crimes.
If there is a group of five or more persons, formally or informally organized, having as one of their primary activities the commission of indictable offences under the Criminal Code punishable by a maximum of five years or more, and any or all of whom have engaged in a series of such offences over the last five years, they do not fall out of the definition for reason only of their age, that they would personally be subject to a maximum of three years under the Young Offenders Act. My officials take that view and I do as well.
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
Mr. Chairman, I do not agree. In reality if the offence carries under the Criminal Code a penalty that is indictable with a maximum of five years or more, then it falls within this definition. The fact that an individual offender, because of the Young Offenders Act, would be subject to a lessor penalty because of their own age is beside the point.
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
Mr. Chairman, the Young Offenders Act is only the jeopardy to which the individual young person is subject, but the offence itself is punishable in the Criminal Code by five years or longer. If the offence itself is punishable by a maximum of five years on indictment, then it meets the definition.
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
Mr. Chairman, it does. It applies to anybody who is subject to the criminal law, anybody 12 and older. If there are 13-year olds, five or more of them, who formally or informally organize themselves into a group which has as one of its primary activities the commission of an indictable offence for which a maximum of five years imprisonment is provided by Parliament and any or all of whom have engage in a series of such offences over the last five years, regardless of the age of the participants, they could be found to be a criminal organization. A criminal organization offence could be committed regardless of the age of the participants so long as they are subject to the criminal law sanction being 12 years of age or older. There is no distinction here in terms of age.
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
Mr. Chairman, in the definition the reference is to offences for which there is a maximum of at least five years imprisonment as a punishment. It is for indictable offences with that consequence. It is not only in the Criminal Code but in other federal statutes as well. I am not sure if it would be helpful to provide that list because it is very long.
In terms of penalties, the Criminal Code is divided into a series-to use a word-in which there are groups of offences punishable by six months, two years less a day, two years, five years, ten years, fourteen years, and life. Those are the distinctions in terms of Criminal Code penalties.
Those offences punishable by a maximum of five years on indictment make up a very considerable group both in the code and in other statutes. I do not know that it would be helpful to have that list. What we are trying to do here is give the court a sense of the degree of seriousness to which we are looking when we say that someone is involved in a criminal organization. Therefore we have picked those offences which have the maximum of five years, which are up on the scale. They are not six months or two years plus a day or two years, they are in the medium range of seriousness and beyond. These are significant offences.
In response to the question put by my friend from Crowfoot on the issue of series, I am reminded as I look at the Oxford concise definition of series that the element that would be missing if we used two or more, rather than series, is the element of successive or the temporal relationship between the offences. In other words, if a person committed both offences in the same day, both having to do with the same event, for example, robbery and assault, that would be more than one but they would both be in connection with the same event and would not capture the notion of series in the sense that there would be successive occasions on which such events took
place; a person committed a crime in February but also committed the crime in October and so on.
As we look back over the five year period the notion of series is to connote not only a number, more than one, but that they were successive, in temporal relationship, one to the other, and there was a pattern which demonstrated that on more than one occasion the person had engaged in that criminal conduct. That is what series gives us that two or more would not.
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
Mr. Chairman, I said the dictionary definition should govern. Perhaps we should have that before us. I could ask one of my officials to provide me with a copy of the dictionary definition of "series" and we could read from that.
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
Mr. Chairman, we intended it to have its ordinary meaning. I would be happy if a court would look at the ordinary dictionary definition of that term when it comes to interpreting it and applying it.
May I say it is quite common in legislation, not just justice legislation but bills in general, that Parliament does not define all the terms that are used. We could scarcely do that because we would never get out of the definition section. Even if we were to do so, the definition sections themselves are open to interpretation by the courts. The courts will have the last word on all legislation; that is just the way things work in this democracy.
What we intended was to communicate the idea that where members engage over the last five year period in more than one of these criminal offences and indeed a series, then it should catch the definition of criminal organization. We are not talking here about an isolated event. We are not talking here about an exceptional event. We are talking about a series of events and therefore we are
giving the court the nature of the organization that we have in mind.
Criminal Code April 21st, 1997
Mr. Chairman, it is a good question. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General holds a place apart in any cabinet. He is a politician by definition but he has another responsibility as well: to be the guardian of the Constitution and the rule of law.
He or she is there to focus issues of principle on questions of politics, to borrow a phrase from Ian Scott who served with such distinction as Attorney General of Ontario for five years. I can tell the hon. member that I have considered that question at every stage of this process. I can tell him with honesty that in my view this is good law. It is needed. It is good policy.
I can tell him that if the request from the province of Quebec had come under different circumstances at a different time, I would respond in the same way. Within two days of getting a call from the minister of public security, I was in Quebec City to meet with him and 14 mayors of the region because I was aware of the depth of their concern and the extent of the problem.
I promised to look immediately at the proposal they gave to me. I did and I concluded it was unacceptable, but I also put something else on the table. I said: "Here are tools that we think are legal but that will make a difference". I solicited the involvement of others in the process I have already described in terms of consultation.
What we produced is before members now in Bill C-95. It is an urgent response to a very difficult and serious problem. I believe focusing issues of principle on questions of politics is the right thing to do.
Two years ago, members were kind enough to look carefully at Bill C-104 which had to do with adding DNA testing to the criminal law. We went through a similar process. I was here in this chair in committee of the whole, on clause by clause study for Bill C-104.
We passed that bill in a day. It went on to the other place and was adopted very quickly. It became law. Again, it did not go through the long, extensive process that we associate with legislation. We did it because we came to the common view that here was something that was needed and was not already in the criminal law. There was a case to be made that it was going to make a difference to police inquiries so we went ahead and acted quickly. There was no election pending; it was not as though the House was going to rise and we were all going to go on the hustings. It was two years ago, in the middle of our mandate.
My point is that there are times, quite apart from elections, when the need arises and circumstances require that we act quickly. I believe this is one of those cases. As a general rule, as I said in connection with Bill C-104, it is better to take the extended period. On this bill, with the facts and with this law we are in a position to act quickly and it is in the public interest to do so.