GOVERNMENT ORDERS

BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.) moved that the bill be concurred in and read the second time.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Some hon. members: Yea.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. members: Nay.

The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The Deputy Speaker: A recorded division on the motion stands deferred until the completion of Government Orders today.

* * *

CRIMINAL CODE

The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Question.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Kilgour in the chair.)

[English]

On Clause 1

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, it is very important through this committee of the whole and through the questions we have prepared for the minister that we determine the constitutionality and the enforceability of this bill and whether this clause and the allied clause which it creates, that is criminal organization and criminal organization offence, are enforceable and not hollow pieces of legislation. I have some concerns about the wording of this section and perhaps the minister can respond.

(1210)

The first clause refers to a criminal organization which means any group, association or body. But group, association or other body is not defined in the bill and I do not believe it is defined elsewhere in the Criminal Code. Could the minister please tell the committee what he meant by the terms group, association or other body in the bill? What did he mean when he placed these terms in the bill?

Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, we intended the dictionary definition of group, association or other body. We did not think it was necessary to define those terms. We intend them to have their ordinary meaning. We also added ``whether formally or informally organized'' so we would not need membership cards or a written constitution for a group or organization to meet this definition.

We are aware from our dealings with the police and others that organized crime takes many forms in Canada. It is sometimes in the nature of what we refer to as biker gangs. Sometimes it is far less visible, white collar crime or business crime. The conclusion to which we came based on the mischief we are aiming at through this legislation is that the words group, association or other body

are sufficient to capture organized crime in the many forms in which it appears as long as the balance of the definition was satisfied as well.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I agree with the minister that the definition is broad enough to encompass the groups he is targeting like the biker gangs which probably prompted this bill. How will the minister ensure this definition does not include other groups that are formally or informally organized? It is a pretty broad definition. How do we ensure that someone who likes to tip a brown at a biker club is not included with the bikers? He may be guilty by association, which is something I am sure the minister does not want to happen.

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, this is a definition and does not create an offence. To meet the definition a group would have to be an organization which has as one of its primary activities the commission of an indictable offence punishable by at least five years in prison and whose members, any or all, have within the last five years engaged in the commission of a series of such offences.

We are not talking about benign organizations. In the last few days I have heard the comment that this definition might sweep up well meaning groups like environmental groups or labour protesters who in order to make a point may break the law as an act of civil disobedience.

The section with the definition does not create an offence. It simply defines the term criminal organization. It is a group, one of the primary purposes of which is to commit serious criminal offences and whose members, or some of them, have within the last five years done just that. We are not talking about a sewing club or an environmental group that pickets to protest the government's policies. We are talking about people who are dedicated to crime and who have formed a group for that purpose.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if the definition would include such groups as the FLQ.

(1215 )

Mr. Rock: Again it is difficult to know what one knows about the FLQ. If the FLQ or any other group meets the definition, it would be included. If there is a group which is dedicated to the commission of serious criminal offences and has as one of its primary purposes to do that and has members who have done that over the last five years, then it would be included in the definition.

Do not forget that the definition does not create an offence; it is simply part of the framework that establishes access by the investigating police to certain techniques that might not otherwise be available. It creates a framework in relation to penalties for those who are convicted of offences that were carried out to benefit, or under the direction of, such organizations.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, what is meant by a primary activity as contained in clause (a): ``having as one of its primary activities the commission of an indictable offence''? What is a primary activity? How is it defined? What is meant by that term? It goes on to say: ``the commission of an indictable offence''. Does that mean that in order to have an organization declared a criminal organization there has to be indictable offences committed and convictions registered?

Perhaps we could deal with this one question at a time. Could the minister tell the committee what he means by primary activity?

We could then go back to the number five, where a criminal organization must constitute at least five people. Why was five chosen? What happens if one of them dies? Is the organization still classified as a criminal organization? If one of them goes to jail, what happens then? Why was the number five picked in this case? Perhaps if the minister could answer that question first, I will follow into clause 1(a) and the other questions.

Mr. Rock: Those are good questions.

I will deal with the number five first. When we were preparing the legislation, and indeed over the period of time when we were looking at the scourge of organized crime and trying to determine the best course for dealing with it, we looked at statutes in other parts of the world. Some of them were of no help because they were in countries with different constitutional traditions and they had approaches that would clearly not be appropriate for Canada.

In some American jurisdictions, we found some helpful precedents. When it came to defining what a criminal organization or what a criminal gang was, they almost invariably used a number, sometimes three and sometimes five. We inquired into it and concluded that the reason is that you have to start somewhere and pick a number.

At the end of the day there is an element of arbitrariness. It could have been three, it could have been five. At one time I was looking at the prospect of two or more. The concern with two or more is that it could be a husband and wife team who are engaged in a crime spree and might be considered a gang. That was not really intended.

We came to five as a reasonable accommodation in that we wanted to have a sufficient number so that there was a group, not so small that it could be a couple or a couple with a friend, but not so large in number that we were going to end up with groups creating subgroups in order to escape the definition. The number five is intended to reflect our policy objective of capturing linkages among people, more than just a couple of friends, so that there is a

critical mass for a group but not so many that it becomes impractical to enforce.

The second question my friend asked had to do with primary activities. Again we did not define that term. We would be happy with the dictionary definition.

We expect that a court is going to require a prosecuting crown to establish on the evidence that one of the primary activities of a particular group was to engage in serious criminal offences and that is not going to be easy. The crown attorney is going to have to produce evidence of past criminal conduct, statements or circumstances which would lead the court to conclude that in the common sense definition of the term, one of the real reasons for the group, one of its fundamental purposes, one of its chief preoccupations and one of its reasons for being is to commit serious criminal offences.

(1220)

For example, members of a motorcycle gang might say that their purpose is to ride motorcycles and engage in discussions about the size and performance capabilities of their motorcycles. That is one primary activity. However on the evidence the judge would be invited to conclude that another of their primary activities was the commission of offences because of what they had been doing and what had been brought before the court. In each case it will be for the court to conclude on the evidence on a common sense test that it was one of their primary purposes.

The third question put to me by the hon. member has to do with whether one needs to formally establish a fact of conviction in order to satisfy the constituent elements of the definition, that is to say that in the preceding five years any or all of the members have engaged in the commission of a series of such offences. We used the term commission of offences rather than referring to conviction so that it would not be necessary to file a formal certificate of conviction.

It will be open to the prosecuting crown in each case where an effort is made to come within the definition to prove on evidence that there was the commission of such offences. That will not be easy either. The crown is going to have to establish to the satisfaction of the court, and because it is criminal offences we are talking about, on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that indeed these people did engage in the commission of such serious offences during the relevant period. It is not an easy definition to meet.

That is why I have a degree of confidence in responding to people who express the concerns: Are you not casting the net too wide? Are you not going to catch up in this well intended legislation those who are not so bad and those who you never intended to catch but who might be committing acts of civil disobedience? I do not think so.

What we are creating here is a significant hurdle for the prosecuting crown in that exceptional case where we are dealing with organized crime and we have to prove on the evidence the elements of primary purpose, the element of numbers-five-and that on the evidence to the criminal standard of proof, they have engaged in the commission of a series of serious criminal offences.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered the question about an organization and the consistency of a group of five. What happens if one of the group can no longer be termed within that definition and there are only four? That four then loses that definition. Does this not encourage organized criminals to break down into cells of four, cells of less than five and continue to carry on their nefarious activities?

We are concerned that we have not had witnesses to debate both sides of this issue and exhaust any flaws that they might see within the bill. Would the justice minister give us an example of how a criminal organization would be determined? What is the process? Do we wait until someone is arrested for a criminal offence or convicted of a criminal offence and then build the other four people around that individual? How is that done? Once that organization, whether it is Hell's Angels or some other organization, is deemed to be a criminal organization, is it or any group of five deemed to be a criminal organization forever?

I would like the justice minister to address these very significant aspects of concern. It is from the viewpoint of whether or not this particular definition is enforceable or applicable. It is so nebulous that we may have difficulty ever having the courts determine that an organization is a criminal organization.

(1225)

The Chairman: This is an unusual procedure and the member may wish to look at Standing Orders 100, 101, 102 and 103 which deal with amendments in committee of the whole.

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, what must be remembered is that the objective is not to deal with groups on the margin who may have three or four people committing crimes. The objective is to get tools into the hands of the police so they can gather evidence in relation to organizations that pose a serious risk to the safety of the community and that are engaged on a systematic basis in the commission of serious offences throughout the country.

The hon. member asked me about groups subdividing into cells of four in order to escape the strict terms of the definition. In my view if any such thing happened, the court could and would simply look beyond the artificial subdivision to the existence of the larger group on the facts and would not permit such a ruse or artifice to interfere with the enforcement of this law.

For example, just because a given biker gang which is internationally known and internationally active creates subgroups of four members each and gives them a different name would not protect them from this law. The court would be able to look at evidence of the reality behind the artifice and would be able to conclude that the group or association was broader than just the four members and would apply the law as such.

Let me get to the hon. member's broader question which has to do with how this law works. This law works in two fundamental ways.

First of all, for the first time it establishes a formal framework which defines organized crime. That framework provides access by the police, if they are investigating such a phenomenon, to investigative tools which would not ordinarily be available: wiretaps with a different standard; extensions of wiretaps which would otherwise not be available; prolonging the period after which notice of a wiretap has to be given, which in other cases would have to be given sooner. Access to income tax information is another investigative technique or tool which would not otherwise be available to the police.

That is the first thing it does. It establishes a new category of organized crime. If the police are investigating it, they can do things they would not be able to do if they were investigating other kinds of crime.

The second thing this legislation does is it establishes different consequences for organized crime as opposed to other kinds of crime. Penalties are more severe. If a person commits the same crime but does it in association with, for the benefit of, or at the direction of organized crime, then the consequences will be more significant than they otherwise would be.

The proceeds of crime legislation will apply to the crime. Beyond that, the court can not only seize the proceeds of the crime, it can also seize the instruments used to commit it. If a truck is used to drive explosives from point A to point B to plant them for the gang, the truck can be seized if the evidence shows it was an instrument used in the commission of the crime.

Those are the two fundamental things in the bill. There are others. The first is that it establishes something called organized crime. For the first time in our Criminal Code it creates that category. It provides for special tools for the police when they investigate this category of crime which is very, very difficult to do. There are also special consequences including harsher penalties and application for the proceeds and instruments to be seized. Those are the two items.

(1230)

There is another element my friend asked about which I would like to speak to briefly. He asked how we prove it or how it works. For example, if police forces thought they were investigating a gang and wanted to have access to these provisions, and say, for example, they were applying to the electronic surveillance board or wiretap board and wanted to be relieved of the obligation of proving it was a last resort as we proposed they should be able to, they would have to show reasonable grounds to believe that what they were investigating was an organized crime offence, that a criminal organization was involved and that these sections should pertain to that investigation. They would have to do that on proof. They would need to have evidence before the court to satisfy the reasonable grounds test and they would get the warrant under those circumstances.

Mr. Ramsay: 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?

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, I should have said this earlier. I heard my friend last time talk about a declaration in relation to a criminal organization. Although he now uses the word designation, may I say that neither applies.

We are not saying: ``Judge, here is the Allan Rock group. Would you please declare it a criminal organization so that from now on any time we are investigating the Allan Rock group we can have access to these tools and penalties''. I do not want to hear my friend tender evidence that there is such a group, because I would claim that my privileges were being abused.

An hon. member: It is right behind you, Allan.

Mr. Rock: There is my Allan Rock group. It is not a declaration or a designation. It is a question of fact in each case. If there were only four members the act would not apply. If the group artificially subdivided to make it only four, as I said earlier I think the court would look past that artifice. If there really are only three or four people committing crimes, we have made the choice of five; it would not apply.

It is not as though we will ask the court to declare a certain group criminal and it is criminal for five or ten years thereafter. Every time someone brings an application for a search warrant, every time someone alleges the participation in a criminal organization, it will be necessary to prove afresh that there is a criminal organization involved. That depends on evidence. As a practical matter it may get easier the third, fourth or fifth time because the court will be able to look at evidence amassed on the earlier proceedings. Nonetheless, it will be a question of fact in each case for the court

to be satisfied that we are dealing with a criminal organization. Then the consequences would flow.

Mr. Ramsay: 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)?

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, careful consideration has been given within the department to the constitutionality of the bill and each of its elements. It is difficult to answer about the constitutionality of subsection 1(a) because it is part of the whole.

(1235)

I am able to tell the hon. member that we looked very carefully at the constitutionality of Bill C-95, those sections which create offences and those sections which modify existing sections of the Criminal Code. We are satisfied it is constitutional as being consistent with the charter. That results from careful assessment of all elements of the bill.

Mr. Ramsay: 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?

Mr. Rock: To a considerable extent. The process that resulted in the bill started in February 1996. At that time the solicitor general and I began looking at different available approaches to help the police investigating organized crime.

We conducted a seminar with police forces from across the country in February 1996 and received an extensive factual briefing about the nature and extent of organized crime in Canada, including biker gangs but not just biker gangs.

Through the period last summer and into the fall we in the department looked at possible approaches through legislation. In September of last year we had a national forum on organized crime to which we invited defence counsels, crown prosecutors, criminologists, business people, experts from the RCMP and representatives from other countries. Alan Borovoy was kind enough to come the conference as well.

We canvassed a wide range of people including civil libertarians. We canvassed a wide range of approaches trying to identify just what mischief we were after and how best within the Constitution to tackle it. That in turn gave rise to specific recommendations. Further work was done in the department over the winter.

When the government of the province of Quebec asked us in March for legislation to help with the biker gang problem in Quebec, that request accelerated work already under way. Indeed it had been under way for some extended period.

Since March we have had further discussions with representatives of various viewpoints in the criminal justice system. We took the concepts in Bill C-95, sat down and discussed approaches with defence lawyers, crown prosecutors, police officers, police chiefs, provincial attorneys general, provincial solicitors general and ministers of public security.

We were alerted to some concerns. We went to the Canadian Bar Association and to le Barreau du Québec. Sometimes we made changes or adjustments in the legislation because of what we were hearing. All the while we were conducting our own assessment of its constitutionality.

Is it possible to have further study? Of course. It is always possible to have further study. We do not have a monopoly on wisdom or on knowledge. I am sure the hon. member will bring to our attention today some useful insights with respect to the bill.

I assure the hon. member and committee of the whole that we have done a pretty thorough job in going to stakeholders in the criminal justice system to look at the bill through their eyes to anticipate objections and concerns that might be expressed. We have made changes to adjust to their concerns in some cases. Based on that overall survey we were satisfied it was good policy and good law and therefore we put it before the House.

Mr. Ramsay: 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?

(1240)

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, I do not know that concerns were exactly expressed about the sections we have looked at so far. Certainly concerns were expressed about the overall bill. It is not hard to find those.

Alan Borovoy, for whose views I have the highest regard, expressed concern about whether the bill is over broad, whether the definitions of criminal organization are too sweeping so that we will catch in our net those who should not be there and do not

deserve to be called a criminal organization. I have answered that to some extent in my answers to the hon. member's questions. By the way, we took respectfully into account the views of Alan Borovoy and others who were concerned about over breadth.

For example, in one of the many drafts we added five-year minimum penalties for the indictable offences included in the definition of a criminal organization. We are elevating the seriousness of the crime, a series of which they have engaged in, by stipulating it is only crimes punishable by the maximum five years in prison that will qualify for the definition. We are getting past the trivial to the more serious kinds of crimes.

Speaking more directly to the hon. member's question about enforceability and whether it will be of practical benefit, police forces were very directly involved in the process I have described since February 1996. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police gave us its written proposal on what it thinks we ought to do about organized crime in Canada. We looked at it carefully. We concluded that at least in its present form it is not constitutionally valid, and we told the association that. We said we would keep working on it and that we regard Bill C-95 as the beginning of a process, not the end.

We will keep working on it. We also told police forces what we thought we could do in the short term based on the research done over the last several years, especially in the last 18-month effort. We sat down with them with these proposals. Last week the House could see for itself the degree and nature of support in the police community. It was very strong. Chiefs of police believe they will be able to use these tools.

The vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, Jacques Duchesneau, is the director of the police services in Montreal. He was closely involved in the development of the proposals. We gave him an outline of the proposals. He responded with his ideas. We had a dialogue. Last week he welcomed them as a very good start in terms of helping police forces with practical tools in their difficult task of tackling organized crime.

If we ask the experts, the actual police chiefs in the field, that is where we get the best evidence on the question of whether the proposals are useful and effective. I am able to report the police community has been strongly supportive of the proposals and believe they will be of value.

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

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, I do not recall that having been a matter of discussion. We looked at the possibility of three. The California statute refers to three. If the hon. member feels strongly about it I would be happy to have his views.

It will not make or break the bill. If the hon. member thinks it would be an advantage to say three, I find it difficult to argue strongly against him. Picking the larger number of five signals to my mind more clearly what we are after, the larger group starting to become a network. If the hon. member has strong views about it I would be happy to hear him and his rationale.

The Chairman: Does the member wish to make an amendment?

Mr. Ramsay: 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.

The Chairman: The member is asking the minister if the government would support the amendment.

(1245 )

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, yes. To the extent there has been public comment on these proposals, my impression is that some have been saying it should be more than five, not fewer than five. There may be witnesses before the other place when the bill gets there who will say that we should be increasing the number and not decreasing it.

At least for the moment I would like to reserve our position. Perhaps we can come back to this issue after we have had a longer time to think about it and I have a chance to speak to my officials about it.

The Chairman: Is the hon. member finished asking questions?

Mr. Ramsay: 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.

The Chairman: Would the member be kind enough to provide that amendment in handwritten form?

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

The Chairman: If the clause is approved as it is then it is too late to make an amendment. However, if the member wishes to make an amendment it can be debated and then voted on or perhaps there will be unanimity on the amendment.

We can defer clause 1 if that is the wish of both sides.

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

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I have some questions for the minister. I have been listening to try to not cover the same ground the hon. member for Crowfoot has covered.

I am concerned about a number of issues. It is from that perspective that I approach this legislation. I am concerned, as the minister is, about the impact of this legislation on law-abiding groups. I am also concerned about the importance of us passing a law recognizing there is an immediate problem in the province of Quebec with this issue. It is a serious issue. The police are asking for more powers to deal with group criminal activity.

I still feel that if it goes too fast, if a bad law is passed, it will be worse than no law. I have heard the minister say this on occasion, especially with reference to the victims bill of rights when answering the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. The minister explained why he would not proceed forward with that issue. There is that point of view.

The minister would like to avoid legislation that would allow for the following situation: Somebody from one of these groups commits a crime, the case goes before the courts and then either the person gets off scot-free on a technicality or the supreme court nullifies the court decision in six months or so. Time spent now is time well spent versus wasting taxpayers' dollars and a horrendous and embarrassing situation before a court somewhere down the road after this law goes through.

Starting with clause 1, the major issue the minister and the justice department want to cover is the definition of a criminal organization. That is a huge starting point. Personally I feel the definition is too restrictive and will avoid capturing those groups that sometimes tend to start criminal activities and then grow to huge numbers.

The minister may be addressing the problem from the wrong point of view. If we argue for larger numbers, by that time the groups have already committed a lot of crimes. It might be better to look at it from the point of view of the smaller number with the knowledge that a group has the intent to commit criminal activities. The group is associated for that purpose. I have no problem with the word association in this first definition.

I have a problem with the term group. I know that group means three or more. The minister said today in testimony to the member for Crowfoot that it is the ordinary meaning. The ordinary meaning of group is three or more, not five or more. If a group of four or more commits a crime this law does not apply. Therefore, the surveillance, the wiretapping and the income tax investigation cannot be done. That is restrictive if the purpose is to nip things in the bud.

(1250 )

I am submitting this argument for consideration for the amendment that may come later from the member for Crowfoot. He talked about lowering the number to three. I would argue and support three.

The Chairman: Would it be agreeable to defer clause 1 until later on?

Mr. Strahl: I think we may want to defer the amendments on clause 1 but there is further debate from several others here.

Mr. Silye: I have a comment and about three or four questions. I wanted to build the framework of where I am coming from, much like the minister has in his response so that we better understand what he is trying to do. I think that is important. I do not mean to be wordy like a normal politician is. I am trying to do my job effectively here. However, I happen to be a wordy individual so please bear with me.

First, that is my argument, rationale and reasoning to possibly look at lowering the number because if the minister says ``ordinary meaning,'' a group means three or more. In light of that and because the minister was a lawyer and worked in the courts, is there any previous precedent that would contradict any of those three words that he uses in his definition and that would exclude his five or more? That is one assurance I would like to have.

Second, in terms of the impact on law-abiding groups, about the Rock biker gang to which he symbolically referred, are we prejudging? Will this law prejudge the Hell's Angels and Rock Machine as criminal organizations de facto when this bill is passed? Are there people already known to the government and the police who have committed criminal acts punishable by five years or less within that group presently? If so, why have not one of the over 800 sections in the Criminal Code that are there to help police officers in the performance of their duties been used to put these people before the courts to try them for the acts that their group has done?

Mr. Rock: First, Mr. Chairman, I full agree with the hon. member, this is time well spent. I am very happy to have this interchange with hon. members about this bill.

The hon. member referred to a problem in Quebec as having inspired the bill. While the issue takes centre stage in Quebec because of the open warfare between certain gangs there now, it is a problem throughout Canada that we are addressing. I spoke with the chief of police in Vancouver in the course of consulting when we were drafting the bill and he was telling me about the problems in Vancouver with gangs and organized crime. Indeed, a serious criminal offence had been charged that very week involving a member of a biker gang in Vancouver.

I have spoken with attorneys general in Manitoba and Ontario, to the chiefs of police in Halifax, Toronto and Ottawa who have all told me the same thing. This is not just a Quebec issue. It so happens that the most spectacular aspects of the problem are evident there now with the bombs that have gone off and the lives that have been lost. However, we are dealing with a pan-Canadian issue, not just Quebec.

The Chairman: Does the hon. member have any further questions?

Mr. Silye: Mr. Chairman, the minister did not answer the two questions.

Mr. Rock: I will answer those questions now. I should not pause. I should just keep talking straight through and not look as though I am going to stop.

There are two questions to answer in particular, the first one about lowering it to three. I am not aware of any court decisions that would bind us about the definitions of groups, organizations or associations. As I said earlier, we are happy to consider lowering it to three. Even as we speak there are people out there watching this and people in the justice department who are intensively examining the proposals that are being made to see if there are any other things we should say so we can add to this discussion. Before this process is over we will have a position for you on your suggestion that we lower it to three.

In your second question you asked us about the impact on law-abiding groups. I say that if there is a group out there that has as one of its primary activities the commission of indictable offences for which imprisonment of five years or more is provided in the code and which has as members people who have engaged over the last five years in the commission of a series of such offences, then they are not law-abiding groups and, by definition, law-abiding groups are excluded from the application of that section.

(1255 )

My friend also asks if we will prejudge certain organizations or gangs, the so-called clubs. No, we will not. The very thing that the attorney general of Quebec asked me for I simply could not give, which is to say that membership alone in a certain group called X is an offence and that there be a schedule to the act with the names of the groups on it which indicate that those people are all criminals and, therefore, they lose certain rights and we can do certain things. We said that we will not do that. We cannot do that.

Instead, we said that we would talk concepts instead of people. We will talk about teams and ideas instead of the names of groups. We will give a description in the criminal law. If there is a group which has as one of its primary purposes the commission of serious crimes and if that group has a membership which has engaged in the last five years in a series of serious crimes, that is a criminal organization. That does not create an offence, it just describes what a criminal organization is.

We then went on to say that if a person commits a crime to benefit a criminal organization, that is more serious than it would otherwise be because this is a particular mischief we are trying to root out of our society.

That is not to say that particular groups are automatically deemed to be criminal when we pass this bill. The reality is that the crown attorney will have to tender evidence in each case: that this person is doing this for the benefit of a criminal organization, that gang X is a criminal organization because it is borne out in the facts. The court will have to be persuaded that they fall within the definition.

The last question my friend asked was why is it that the 800-odd sections in the very thick and complete Criminal Code have not succeeded to date in achieving all of this?

Organized crime, as I have learned from the police, presents a unique challenge in investigation. The police techniques typically are that an informer is sent inside, an officer is sent in under cover or they try to persuade someone in the organization to turn and become their informer. Also they solicit bits of information from people who are prepared to talk. In organized crime, particularly some of the groups which are active in Canada today, the police cannot infiltrate because the groups require that in order to become a member or be admitted to the inner circle that person has to commit a serious crime to qualify. It is an initiation. Police cannot do that.

Second, those who are inside, who police sometimes try to turn to become informers, realize they will face the death penalty if they are caught. That is a serious disincentive to providing information to the police. Similarly, there is an element of intimidation of those who might otherwise give information.

The fact is that the police find it exceedingly difficult to investigate these groups based on the powers in the code. That is why the police have been asking for the kind of tools that are contained in this bill, which we believe will make a difference in these exceptional cases.

I hope that responds to the questions which my friend asked.

Mr. Silye: Mr. Chairman, the minister did address the questions I asked.

It is like I am acting as a director of a huge public corporation, the Government of Canada and, with due diligence, I am making sure as a director that the right questions are asked. I think that is what we are all trying to do here.

The minister said that this is not specifically Quebec related. We all know that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and the justice critic for that party have been asking questions on this issue since 1995. March 1995 was the first time a question was asked in the House of Commons on this issue. At that time the minister indicated that the code had enough tools, as he has done until recently. A political perception might be that this is being rushed through for a pre-election purpose to build up and shore up popularity in a province in which the Prime Minister may or may not have the proper poll numbers.

I did not create those stories. I did not allege those charges. They are very well documented in all the press and media. That has made me very concerned that we not rush this legislation through in such a way that we do not show the Canadian public that we are trying to provide good governance. It is the Minister of Justice and his department which has that responsibility. I make an analogy to the victims bill of rights where the argument used was not to proceed. That addresses the answer. I just wanted to make a comment on the minister saying it was pan-Canadian.

(1300)

With respect to criminal organizations consisting of five or more or three or more, they will not declare in writing their intent. It is like gun control. I hate to touch on it, but criminals who need handguns, rifles or shotguns for the purposes of committing crimes will not register them because it would lead to a quicker trail to them. They will get one illegally and commit the crime anyway. We will see if gun control will reduce crime. We will also see if this definition of criminal organization will reduce warring activities across the country.

With this preamble and setting the stage, if we now define criminal organization which up until now has not been defined in the Criminal Code, what different powers will it give police officers that they do not have now under the 800 sections?

As I understand the law, if they suspect somebody of committing a crime or they suspect somebody of being guilty of something, if there is suspicion and sufficient evidence, police officers can obtain warrants. Search and seizure are available. Surveillance is available. Wiretapping with a judge's permission is available, as is requesting tax records of somebody who has committed income tax fraud. I am the revenue critic. I know how heavy, hard and strong tax avoidance audit groups work. They do a darned good job. I know the powers they have.

Now we are defining criminal organizations. Will it give police forces that much more power when they already have the same powers on an individual basis?

Mr. Rock: I believe so but, more important, the police believe so.

It is helpful to have the advice of those who are actually in the field. It certainly was on gun control. We had the support of the chiefs of police and the Canadian Police Association. They believed it would make a difference in terms of community safety. I know the hon. member voted for Bill C-68. He must have come to that conclusion. I know how carefully he thinks through positions before taking them.

The member referred to this being our opportunity for due diligence. I do not want him to think for a moment that I do not welcome the opportunity to discuss these features of Bill C-95 with my colleagues. I welcome the chance to have their views. As I said earlier, I am sure we will learn from the incite they bring to the process. We need this kind of examination and I welcome it.

What will the bill give police forces that they do not already have under the existing Criminal Code? Why do they think it will be important to them in their fight against organized crime?

At the moment if police officers want to get a wiretap they have to prove a number of things to a judge first. Among those they have to prove on evidence that every other kind of investigative technique either has been tried and failed or if it was tried would fail because of the nature of the investigation. That takes police officers to the point of having to swear an affidavit or other form of particulars of what has already been done, go through the list of alternative methods and satisfy the court on evidence that it is a last resort in the investigation of a certain crime.

The bill would remove that burden. It would simplify the process of getting a wiretap if the police officer is investigating criminal organization offences. Similarly with warrants. Returning to wiretaps, it would relieve police officers of a paper burden. We are not saying we should allow free access to intrusive methods because it is administratively difficult for police. We are saying we should make that change because when investigating organized crime it is almost always obvious that it is a last resort for the reasons I have already given. It is very difficult to investigate.

We are taking a burden from the police which we think is undue in the circumstances of offences of this kind. Some say if it is all so easy to establish they can establish it to the satisfaction of the judge and nothing is lost. We are trying to recognize the unique character of these offences in the way investigative tools are available to police officers. If we have the courage to conclude on the facts that it is almost always the last resort, then let us say it in the criminal law and not have the police go through the empty process of establishing it. It sends a signal as well.

(1305)

Furthermore, police officers have told me that they get wiretaps and the day after they start the paperwork to prepare for the renewal because they only get it for 60 days. They tell me that in the context of an organized crime offence it is absurd because those investigations take an exceptional period of time. They have to put together bits and pieces of conversations and relate them to other information. It is a very complex process. They almost always need the wiretap for longer than 60 days.

In the bill we are permitting the court to provide the wiretap for an extended period so that the police will be using their resources investigating crime rather than busily working at paperwork for the extension application.

Similarly notice of the wiretap has to be given after the wiretap is finished to people wiretapped so that they know it and can take proceedings. We have extended the period during which they can give notice in these cases because some of the investigations go on for an exceptional period of time.

At the moment there is a very narrow category of offences for which access to income tax information can be gained. That is as it should be. Income tax is filed on an undertaking with the Canadian people. It is implicit the information be kept absolutely confidential by Revenue Canada. We do permit it at the moment for a very few offences. Officials will know the sections. Basically they deal with drug offences.

What we have proposed is significant. It is to extend the category of access to tax information to assist in investigations into organized crime offences. They cannot just walk in and take the information out of a file. They have to go before a judge, get a warrant, establish to the satisfaction of the judge that a criminal organization offence is being investigated, and that they need the information and it relates to the investigation. Then the warrant can be given and can be limited to such information as the court thinks is appropriate. Nonetheless it is an important breakthrough in terms of giving police more information to fit the puzzle together as to who has what, what are the proceeds of crime, what money is being laundered or what illegal activity is taking place?

Similarly we are proposing for the first time to extend the proceeds of crime legislation beyond drug offences and the like to organized crime offences. It is not only the proceeds. Cash can be taken from their desks during the arrest. It can be instruments as well possibly including real estate if it has been fortified or modified to facilitate the commission of an offence. That is a very important point.

We spoke to the mayor of St. Nicolas or other communities where there are headquarters of organizations of great concern to the citizens. We can imagine a gang setting up in a municipality somewhere, taking over a house, fortifying it, setting up barriers so that the police could not raid it, putting concrete in front and surveillance cameras on top, modifying it and selling drugs out the back door or using it to store explosives or some other such thing. If the real estate is modified or fortified to facilitate the commission of criminal offences, the real estate could be regarded as one of the instruments of crime and could potentially be seized after conviction for an organized crime offence. That is an extremely important tool.

The bill includes serious increases in sentences for crimes committed in association with or for the benefit of criminal organizations. I could have explosives illegally on my person and I would be subject to a maximum of five years in prison. If I am doing it for the benefit of a gang, if I am delivering the explosives to a gang or have planted them for the gang, whether or not I am part of the gang I could face up to 14 years in prison. Why? Because we are targeting organized crime which in turn is targeting us, our families and our children. That is why.

That is not only important because it reflects society's denunciation of organized crime activity. It is also an important tool for the police that may be in a position of having picked people up, arrested them and charged them. Then they have a potentially serious sentence facing them. Police officers can say they are prepared to discuss with them the charge they will be brought before the court on or what submission they will make to the court in relation to the sentence if they co-operate by providing them with information they need. It is a very important tool for police that should not be underestimated.

(1310)

Then there is the so-called peace bond provision which is not there now. It will let police officers bring someone before the judge and say they have reasonable grounds to fear the person will commit a criminal organization offence.

They can ask the judge to look at the evidence, at the people he associates with, at what he has done in the past, at what the wiretap has turned up and at all the other circumstances. Then they invite the judge to conclude there is a reasonable basis to fear the person will commit a criminal organization offence. They can tell the judge that he has committed a number of them in the past and is still with the same group of people. They can ask the judge to look at what he has said publicly and privately.

In those circumstances the court can impose for up to a year conditions on the person's liberty such as prohibiting him from communicating with other members of the group. This would seriously undermine the ability of the leadership of groups to carry on their business. The police believe that is also a valuable tool.

I take the member's point. I should have to satisfy him that what we are proposing here is not only lawful but will be effective. I am able to report from my dealings with the police, the crown attorneys and the attorneys general of the provinces that we have a collection of measures. They are not enough in and of themselves but they will make a difference. They will make it that much easier for the police to tackle this dreadfully difficult problem.

We will be back in the future with more proposals. This is only the first phase of what we will do. Organized crime is a menace in the country. I do not think most of us have an appreciation for what a serious threat it is to the economy and future of the country.

It is a good start. These measures will make a difference for police and that is why we are here.

Mr. Silye: Mr. Chairman, I have one final question. I would just rephrase a good start to a fresh start because I feel it is a fresh example of co-operation between all parties. In any event, because of the nature of the amendments to the Criminal Code the concern is that they not be thrown out by some future supreme court justice.

There is a lot more to discuss in the bill. Why does it have to be done by Friday of this week? Why can we not take two to three weeks? We fast track bills through the House at second reading, report stage, third reading, over to the Senate and back, with exception of the blood bill of last year. Why can we not take two to three weeks from today and do it a little more slowly for the sake of not infringing upon the civil liberties of honest, law-abiding citizens, groups, associations or other bodies?

Mr. Rock: We have asked for all-party agreement to deal with the bill now. My hon. friends have been kind enough to agree. We are dealing with, as I have said, a process that has been methodical. For some time we have been working at it, but it has been accelerated by reason of the request of the Government of Quebec for help in the present circumstances.

Over the last couple of years there have been almost 50 people killed in the gang war in Quebec. I met last week with Mrs. Desrochers, whose 11-year old son, Daniel, was killed in August 1995. He was walking down the street in Montreal on an errand for his mother. The police believe one of these gangs detonated an explosive that was intended as another offensive in their gang war. A piece of shrapnel blew across the street and took the life of the 11-year old boy.

I met with Mrs. Desrochers last summer in my office. The hon. member for Hochelaga was kind enough to introduce me to her. She asked how much longer she must wait before something was done about it. I told her we were working on it and the police were working on it. She met with me again last week. She said she wanted the bill in place and she wanted the police to have these tools. The most important thing to her was that the bill might help the police to find the people who are responsible for her son's death.

There are few more eloquent explanations of why we are moving quickly on the bill. I think of that grieving mother. I think of that 11-year old boy who lost his life. I think of a gang war that continues. We do not know from day to day where another bomb might be found or where it might be exploded. The criminal law is not something that can react on an hourly basis either to judicial decisions we do not like or crises that arise in terms of crimes in the country. It is an instrument that should be brought to bear in those circumstances where we feel as parliamentarians it can help in a lawful, practical way.

(1315)

This is a problem of long standing which is of significant concern to our second most populous province. It has asked for our help and our urgent action. We have produced a bill we think is lawful and which will make a difference. It is under those circumstances we have asked that its adoption be expedited.

I am sensitive to those who say that greater care should be taken and a longer look should be taken at this bill. It may be that the other place may have its own ideas too about when and how the bill is considered.

If it does become law in the next little while, I can see us saying that we will commit to monitoring its progress, to reviewing its operation, to seeing what we have learned from it in operation. I have discussed this matter with officials. They think it may need a period of a couple of years or three years before we are able to look meaningfully at what we have learned from it by the time the wiretaps are in place and there is some empirical data by police across the country.

I would be happy to say to the hon. member that the government will return within three years with a statistical assessment of how this bill has operated, what the effect has been, what judicial decisions have been reached under the bill, whether there have been challenges to its validity, what the police say about how valuable this is as a tool in their hands, what changes might be desirable from a policy or practice point of view. That would be useful. It should be done anyway, but I would be happy to undertake to the member that the government will do so if he would find it of assistance.

Mr. Silye: I respect the example the minister gave me about the 11-year old boy and his mother, and the need to move quickly. That is no different from the pleadings and representations made to the minister by Debbie Mahaffy in terms of having a victims bill of rights, victims impact statements and things like that being clearly identifiable in the law.

Is the minister sure that he is not being pressured by a pending election when he rushes forward with this bill?

Mr. Rock: 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.

(1320)

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.

The Chairman: Would the member indicate whether he wants this clause deferred until the end of all of the clauses?

Mr. Ramsay: 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;

Mr. Rock: 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.

(1325 )

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, if the justice minister means that a series is more than one, that clarifies it in my mind, but I do not read that definition anywhere in the bill. What does a series mean to the various judges across the country? Would the justice minister be prepared to define ``series'' as more than one?

Mr. Rock: 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.

The Chairman: Does the member have a further question?

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I would like to wait until the minister has responded to that.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I have a question and a comment. Earlier, I was relieved when I heard the hon. member for Calgary-Centre, because I was afraid we were getting into something close to a filibuster. That would have been disappointing, I must admit. But the hon. member was most reassuring, and I know his reputation for style and fair play. I really had the feeling that the three parties had reached an agreement to ensure that the bill would be passed as soon as possible.

I am grateful to the minister for recalling what happened in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. The minister knows how concerned I am about the whole issue of organized crime. I have two comments, since I will not speak again on this bill because I really want us to proceed as quickly as possible.

I had an opportunity, for which I thank the minister and his officials, to ask some questions during a briefing session. I imagine the same opportunity was offered to our Reform Party colleagues. During this session I was able to discuss technical aspects of the bill.

So I would appeal to all members of the House to let us proceed as quickly as possible. I also want to explain to my Reform Party colleagues who are very close to the police community that three major demands made by police associations across the country have been documented in a report.

I would be delighted to table this report which is about the management of the proceeds of crime in Canada, if the House were to give its unanimous consent. One of the document's main recommendations is that there should be aggravating circumstances when an offence is committed in relation to organized crime. I understand why this provision found its way into the bill, and the minister can confirm my statement.

My question to the minister is as follows: Could he ask his officials to make a list of the offences covered by this bill, so that we have a better understanding of the legislation? I do not know whether departmental employees have already done so. I do know that there is a reference to all offences punishable by more than five years imprisonment, and these are mainly offences already included in the Criminal Code. However, to give all members of this House a better understanding of the legislation, it might be useful if the Department of Justice promised to distribute this list before we finish our business or by the end of this week. I think it would be very interesting for all members to have this list.

Finally, I want to make one last appeal to have this bill passed with all due dispatch, and I can assure the minister he will have our full co-operation.

[English]

Mr. Rock: 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.

(1330)

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.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if that is going to make this any easier to establish without a definition more definitive than what I just heard from the minister.

The clause indicates what a criminal organization offence is. I ask the justice minister whether the criminal organization offence applies to youth gangs. I do not see that anywhere in the bill. I wonder why this bill is not applicable to youth and, in particular, why the definition of criminal organization does not apply to youth gangs.

Mr. Rock: 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.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the justice minister could explain why under the Young Offenders Act it is only murder that carries an offence greater than the three years. How would this new sentence apply without a transfer to adult court?

Mr. Rock: 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.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be clear on this. If the justice minister is saying that the definition of a criminal organization applies to young offenders and also that the criminal organization offence applies, that is different from the legal opinion we have received. It was on short notice, nevertheless it is different.

When I look at this, from my understanding there is no penalty under the YOA that exceeds three years. The person who was charged for manslaughter, the young offender who was involved in the torture death of Sylvain Leduc, received the maximum penalty that could be received under the YOA of three years. That means that individual, for that offence, does not fall within the category of having committed an indictable offence with a penalty of five years or more. That person, with that record, would not fall within the category or definition.

(1335)

Mr. Rock: 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.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, I want to make this clear. Is the justice minister saying that the young offender who was convicted of manslaughter in the Sylvain Leduc torture death and was granted or given a three year maximum penalty allowed under the YOA falls into one of these categories as a person who has been involved in an indictable offence with a penalty of at least five years imprisonment? Is that what the minister is saying?

Mr. Rock: 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.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, in order to make it clear for the record as well as for those who may be listening, for this young individual who was sentenced to three years maximum for manslaughter under the YOA, if it could have been established and this bill had been in force prior to the death of Sylvain Leduc, could he have been charged under this new criminal organizational offence?

Mr. Rock: 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.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, this person is alleged to have been a member of Ace Crew, a gang, involved in drug trafficking and in the kidnapping of at least two people, one of whom was tortured to death. If this bill predated the commission of that offence, could that young individual have been convicted and sentenced under this new charge, this new offence that has been created, the criminal organizational offence?

Mr. Rock: No.

Mr. Ramsay: Why could he not? If the minister is saying these two new definitions, criminal organization and criminal organization offence, would apply to youth gangs, and it was alleged this person was a member of a youth gang, why would it not apply to this young individual who got only three years for manslaughter if this bill had predated the offence? He has said that it would not apply. I do not understand.

(1340)

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, the first thing I will do is expressly decline to discuss the case of Sylvain Leduc. I think it is wrong to talk about that case because it is before the courts.

Let me then go to a broader level of generality and talk about a gang of youths engaged in a series of criminal acts over time. As I have already said to the member, if there is a group, association or other body consisting of five or more persons, whether formally or informally organized, one of whose primary activities is the commission of indictable offences under the Criminal Code or any act of Parliament punishable by a maximum imprisonment of five years or more, and whose members, any or all, have engaged over the last five years in a series of such offences, then that would be a criminal organization and it would not fall short of the definition only because members were below the age of 18, so long as they were 12 years of age or more. The determination of the predicate offences would be in reference to the penalties provided in the Criminal Code.

The fact that the Young Offenders Act put a cap of three years as the maximum for any individual because of their age alone would not disqualify them from the definition if the other elements were present. I said that earlier and I cannot say it more clearly than that.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Chairman, the justice minister has certainly confused me on this issue. Would a young offender have to be raised to adult court for the indictable offence that has been committed before this new bill is applicable to him?

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, if the crown were seeking the 14 year penalty then it would have to seek transfer to adult court. If it were content to seek a maximum of three years, the matter could be dealt with in youth court.

Mr. Ramsay: 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?

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, as with all young offender matters, if the crown wants penalties under the Criminal Code to apply, it has to seek transfer of the young offender from youth court to adult court. It does not change the nature or the character of the organization. It permits the police to make use of the provisions. But if a person is going to be sentenced as an adult they first have to be transferred to adult court.

Mr. Ramsay: 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?

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, yes, as in every other instance.

Mr. Ramsay: 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.

(1345 )

Mr. Rock: No, Mr. Chairman, but the penalties that can be given are limited to those provided in the Young Offenders Act.

Mr. Ramsay: 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?

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, as in every other case, if the court decides not to transfer the young person out of youth court, then the Young Offenders Act penalties apply.

As the hon. member knows, in Bill C-37 we took the most serious crimes of violence and changed the transfer provisions. We said in Bill C-37, which is now the law of this land, that if one is 16 or 17, namely at the upper range of the age limit covered by the Young Offenders Act, and is accused of one of the most serious acts of violence-and we included murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, aggravated sexual assault-then that person will be tried in adult court unless the person can satisfy the burden of showing to the satisfaction of the judge that it is consistent with the public interest that they be tried in the youth court.

That was to demonstrate that we are not going to tolerate serious crimes of violence from young people and we are going to react to it with swift and certain punishment.

If the youth is transferred to adult court, then that youth is of course subject to all the adult penalties. In connection with Bill C-95, that is the 14 years for explosives, for example, the 14 years for the participation in the criminal organization offence, that is the extended period where the youth cannot apply for parole, that is consecutive sentences if the youth is sentenced for other offences as well. If the youth is transferred to adult court, that youth faces those very significant sanctions. But as in any other case, if the prosecuting attorney does not seek a transfer-of course, that is up to the provincial crown attorney-or if the court says it will not transfer the youth, then that youth is subject to the Young Offenders Act in youth court and the maximums under that statute apply.

Mr. Ramsay: 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?

Mr. Rock: Yes, in my view it would.

Mr. Ramsay: 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.

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member's reference to offence related property?

Mr. Ramsay: Yes.

(1350 )

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, at the moment the criminal law provides that in certain categories of crime, the court can seize and forfeit the proceeds of crime. Indeed, in some circumstances the court can make an order, even before conviction, that the property be tied up or suspended, that the accused person be deprived of its use or operation in the period pending trial.

We have taken over such things as ski chalets under the provisions of that law where it has been possible to prove that the proceeds of the crime can be traced into assets.

In Bill C-95 the ambit of the proceeds section have been extended so that they cover criminal organization offences as well as the offences to which they apply at present. However, we have done something else and this is the first time it has been done. We have extended the powers of the court to include the instrumentalities of crime. This has been under discussion for many years in Canadian law. It has never before been done.

This means that you can not only seize the money that is made from the crime or the property to which you turn it but you can also seize the property used for the purpose of committing the crime. If an organized crime syndicate is using boats to take contraband across the border, using trucks to drive explosives to the scene of the crime, using a building, especially fortified or modified, to facilitate the commission of a crime, then the court will be empowered to order the forfeiture of that property as an instrument of the crime as well as the proceeds which would be in keeping with the practice in Canada to date.

We believe this is going to give the authorities an important new tool to take from the criminal organizations those assets which they use to commit their crimes and to provide a way of shutting them down by depriving them of the very tools they need to carry on their nefarious trade.

Mr. Ramsay: 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?

Mr. Rock: Mr. Chairman, I would want to see that in detail to consider it. Perhaps the hon. member would be good enough to let me have that proposal over the period we take for question period so that we can look at it and consider its implications. I am not quite sure that I understand what the hon. member has in mind but I am sure that by discussing it with him over that period we can

develop a better understanding of it and provide him with an answer.

The Chairman: Further questions? With respect to clause 1 again?

Mr. Strahl: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I do thank the minister for this opportunity to question him. I quite enjoy this kind of give and take. I think this committee of the whole is a very useful provision. People watching on television and going through the Hansard proceedings will see that there is a lot of value in the give and take between the minister and opposition members.

I want to reiterate a problem we have. The Quebec chiefs of police asked for legislation like this back in 1994. We are probably five days away from an election call and now, because we want to be good folks here on this side, we find that we have to pass the bill in a day because if we do not the bill will not become law before the election. That is unfortunate because it taints an otherwise honest attempt by the minister to address a serious problem. It also taints it with that feeling like this is another one of those photo ops in the last week before the election, which is too bad.

However, I take the minister at his word that this has been in the works for a long time. It is just too bad that we are forced to deal with it at the 11th hour. I believe it is going to throw out a lot of questions and comments on this bill that were unnecessary. I have all kinds of newspaper articles that state that politics are coming before good legislation. I am sure the minister does not need that on his resume. It is unfortunate that it has happened.

(1355 )

To continue on that same line, I remind the minister that 10 days ago some amendments on sentencing provisions of Bill C-41 and Bill C-45 had to be brought in. Things slip through when we are in a hurry. Again we agreed to do that in a hurry to allow the minister to correct some imperfections in the bills. Even Bill C-68-about which we consistently chastised the minister-the first set of regulations that came down were all withdrawn and reintroduced.

All those are signs of things done in haste. I hope the minister is right that this bill will stand the constitutional challenge and will do what he wants it to do. But things done in haste this close to an election run the risk of not being done properly.

This is not a huge and long bill but it amends many sections of the Criminal Code. Some received the bill Friday or even this morning. We had people who worked on the weekend. Many of us tried to find out exactly what the bill would mean with consequential amendments and all that stuff. It was very difficult to do.

I have a couple of questions for the minister about this. Am I right that in the first part of the definition of criminal organization where it consists of any body consisting of five or more persons that persons refers to anybody older than 12 years of age? Is that what I heard the minister say?

The Chairman: The time for question period is upon us. We will have to continue again with clause 1 after question period.

(Progress reported.)

The Speaker: It is almost 2 p.m. We will begin statements by members.

_____________________________________________