JURI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA JUSTICE ET DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 29, 1998

• 1010

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.)): Today we're still on Bill C-51, and we have from the Canadian Police Association Jon Netelenbos, who is the vice-president, and André Nadon, who is the Quebec vice-president.

Thank you, gentlemen. I've seen you both before. We're glad to have you back. I understand you have some opening comments, and then I expect committee members will have some questions. Go ahead.

Mr. Jon Netelenbos (Vice-President, Canadian Police Association): Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, the Canadian Police Association apologizes for not having this brief translated. This was a rush thing. We were somewhat caught off guard. I flew in yesterday from Calgary, and André arrived this morning, so everything was rushed. Our deepest apologies for that.

The Chair: You have nothing to apologize for; we rushed you. Go ahead.

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: Thank you.

Much of what's in this bill we support, and we don't anticipate speaking at length about many of the issues. We recognize that we often are critical of criminal justice matters, but it's also important to commend the government for some good things they're doing, and overall we're pretty happy with the bill.

We appreciate the opportunity to put forth some new resolutions, which we've attached to our brief. While arguably this may not be the forum for it, we appreciate that we can at least discuss these briefly.

What I'd like to do then is get right into some of the clauses. First we'll deal with clause 8, with respect to the prostitution offence. Suffice it to say that we strongly advocate the proposed section. It makes it very efficient for us in terms of undercover operations, and the prosecution matter will be less onerous in court. So we fully endorse that.

If I can just go through these brief comments, you may ask the questions afterwards.

With respect to subclause 9(2) on death within a year and a day, this way now the Crown has several options, and this is another positive step. We applaud the government for taking this initiative.

In clause 23, with respect to detention pending the bail hearing, our members passed a resolution that conditional sentencing should be repealed. It may not be in that document, but we feel very resolute about that. We have never believed in it, and we feel it undermines the Canadian criminal justice system. I understand that this committee is going to review the conditional sentencing at a later date anyway, but we feel compelled to mention that.

Subclause 42(2) has to do with getting the consent of the Attorney General of the province in which the breach is alleged to have been committed. We presuppose that this will be a cost factor in breaches, and I don't know if the Attorney General of Saskatchewan would be very interested in pursuing the matter if the breach occurred in Ontario or somewhere further away. It's more of a philosophical statement: costs are always a factor in this. So breaches alleged to have occurred in other areas may still be problematic.

• 1015

With respect to clause 51, I think it's already been brought to the attention of this committee that 40% of all those eligible for the accelerated parole review are readmitted to prison within two years.

As for those who are involved in a criminal organization, I understand this committee has heard that it only affects 10 people who are currently in the system, so it wouldn't have an earth-shattering effect. However, I guess laws are made looking at the future.

As I stated, all in all, we're very pleased with what's happening. You're free to ask questions about some of the other clauses dealing with legalized gambling, for example, but we are primarily here to deal with the two resolutions included at the end of our submission.

One is the resolution regarding high-speed chases. Let me say at the outset that our association will endeavour to start collecting some good statistics about police pursuits, but I can tell you, ladies and gentlemen of this committee, that they are on the increase and they threaten the well-being of many innocent people. We all have heard of cases where people have been killed in Canada. They threaten our well-being as police officers.

We feel very strongly that section 249 of the Criminal Code should be amended. I suppose there are sections in place to deal with dangerous driving, etc., but they don't specifically deal with police pursuit. I understand there's a private member's bill before the House, introduced by MP Dan McTeague. It differs a bit from our—

The Chair: Could we have the number of the bill, please? Do you know it?

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: Yes, it's Bill C-440.

The Chair: Thanks.

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: It differs slightly for us, because it goes into the consequences of injuries and death, but we're simply saying there should be a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment. This is not done capriciously, and our resolutions aren't.

This resolution has been in our organization I think now for three years, and it is very specific. It is not addressed in the Criminal Code, and it is a specific offence. It is not dangerous driving; it is fleeing from a police officer and jeopardizing citizens needlessly. I don't think I have to draw a more detailed scenario for you to know the consequences of high-speed chases, at any time of the day.

While law enforcement agencies in this country do a lot to enact policies and examine things, I don't think it's realistic to expect us to stop chasing criminals. I don't think this would ever be the ideal state. We could try to minimize problems, but there always will be police chases, and there should be consequences if you engage in one.

• 1020

So we strongly urge this committee to look at something in this omnibus bill and perhaps examine it for the future.

André had some comment about this.

[Translation]

Mr. André Nadon (Vice-President for Quebec, Canadian Police Association): With your permission, Madam Chair, in order to further illustrate what my colleague just mentioned regarding high-speed chases, I would like to mention one case that you probably heard about in the newspapers. A police officer in the Joliette region was fatally injured during such a speed chase. Therefore, this impairs not only the safety of police officers who have a responsibility to pursue criminals, but also that of the general public.

Our primary mission is to arrest criminals. As my colleague said, it is utopia to believe that when a police officer has good reasons to think that a crime has been committed, he or she will abandon the pursuit.

But we have seen that police departments increasingly insist on prohibiting police officers from engaging in such high-speed chases, given the danger involved. In theory, that is possible; but in fact, it's a restriction that's quite difficult to impose on police officers. Therefore, I believe that the effect of such a provision in the Criminal Code would be not to eliminate such chases, but at least to reduce them if the sanction is appropriate. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: Just about five years ago, I came to work one day—I was on the day shift—and I heard a tape from the night before of an officer and his partner involved in a motor vehicle pursuit. The last words I heard on the tape were the partner screaming, “My partner has been cut in half!” That's exactly what she said. That was the Richard Sonnenberg case. Resulting from that of course was our helicopter study, and the Calgary Police Service now has a helicopter to deal with motor vehicle chases.

I'll leave that issue now and go to the resolution regarding attempted disarming of police officers. We're simply asking that section 270 be amended to create the indictable offence of attempting to disarm a police officer, and that such an offence have a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment, consecutive to any other sentence imposed. We also ask that section 553 be amended to include this offence in those over which the provincial court has absolute jurisdiction.

Most of you probably know about the case, years ago, of the RCMP officer in Saskatoon, Brian King, who was disarmed. They forcibly took his gun, tied him up in the car, and later executed him. Other police officers and colleagues of mine have been in situations where the gun was pulled at, and fortunately it remained in the holster.

It should be, again, specific. There are sections in the Criminal Code that could deal with a situation in which the gun is taken and used in the offence, but it has to be specific, just like the chase. It's almost a sanctity. That weapon is not to be touched, because that weapon represents potentially life-threatening situations. We feel very strongly about that.

This committee should start looking at specific offences, such as the chase and disarming an officer, because they deal with specifics. For someone to take that weapon, there's an intent there, whatever that is—and it's probably to use that weapon. We feel strongly that there should be that kind of deterrent.

Madam Chair, that's very briefly an overview. As a new administration, we have a new president and we will be hiring a new executive director. We welcome the opportunity to be witnesses in future hearings and look forward to a very mutually productive working relationship with all of you.

• 1025

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Abbott or Mr. Gouk, do you have any questions?

Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, Ref.): Thank you.

I read through as I was listening to you, and those amendments do seem to be things very worthy of consideration. We're at the eleventh hour for doing that type of thing, but I'm sure we can find a bit of time to discuss the possibilities for that.

The other area I'm interested in—and there has been some input on this from the Police Association in the past—is minimum sentencing. In this bill we impose sentences for a variety of different acts, but in many cases there is not a minimum sentence. The two areas I'm particularly interested in are dealing with child prostitution.

In one area in here, we have put in a minimum of five years for anyone who uses violence or intimidation to keep someone or get someone into prostitution, but we have absolutely no minimum sentence for anyone living off the avails of child prostitution. I would propose that we do need some kind of minimum to identify that, and likewise for someone obtaining services from an underage prostitute. We have a maximum, but again, we don't have a minimum, which means they could walk out scot-free. There should be some realistic minimum in there. I would like to get your views on that.

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: This has been discussed before, and I'm glad you brought it up. Philosophically we would support that. And in line with this, if you have a minimum for one component of it, for heaven's sake, why not look at both of them, if the intent of the legislation is to reduce something that is a burgeoning problem in this country, child prostitution?

There have been some figures on this, but we understand some new figures are coming out. It's startling. It's startling what's happening in this country with respect to child prostitution.

We philosophically support that.

Mr. Jim Gouk: On the whole, I think, as most people do, that the bill has a lot of merit and it's a good step in the right direction. However, there's one other area where I have some concern—and we've had some discussions with your association on this—and that's dealing with early release or early parole, or accelerated parole I think is the term used in regard to this.

There's a ban on that for violent offenders, and it specifically uses the principle of violence as the roadblock. But something that's very important is drug trafficking and importation of drugs, which leads to probably more violence than anything else I can think of in terms of criminal activities. I have a concern that we're including drug traffickers and importers of drugs in that qualification for an accelerated parole. It would be appropriate to group them with those violent offenders and ban them from having access to accelerated parole. Again, I would invite your comments on that.

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: Our association hasn't discussed that, but you've brought up a very interesting point. Perhaps it's something we should look at, conviction for drug trafficking. That's what you're referring to, drug trafficking?

Mr. Jim Gouk: Yes, drug trafficking—not so much the conviction, but rather, once convicted. We would say no, they should not be eligible for accelerated parole. It's every bit as serious an offence in our society as any violent offence, and it's endangering a great number of people. Drugs themselves are in essence an offence of violence.

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: They go into all sectors of violence; you're right.

I don't think I would be presumptuous in saying that our association would support such a proposal.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): I have just a quick question. I was a little unclear on your testimony about high-speed chases. I wonder if you could clarify that. I didn't quite understand what you were getting at with that. You were basically saying you wanted to be able to retain the ability to do high-speed chases? I'm really—

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: No, we want to make it an offence, with a maximum penalty of two years, to engage in a high-speed chase with police.

• 1030

Mr. Jim Abbott: Okay, then that puts the finger on what I'm a little bit unclear about. In your judgment, what is the responsibility of the police in a situation of a high-speed chase?

The legislation should call for some kind of specific action against a fleeing felon. I agree with that. But on the other side of the coin, what is the responsibility of the police in that?

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: As I said, there is no national mandate right now, but I can safely say that individual police services from coast to coast have policies in place.

Generally speaking, if it's a traffic offence, we terminate the chase. There are policies about how long the chase should last, and generally speaking, it's from one to three minutes. Although there have been chases of 10 or 15 minutes, that's not generally speaking. So they already have certain policies.

We're saying that somebody who wants to flee the police is already in another category. In other words, we are pursuing that person because they're either wanted for or have committed an offence. That's the kind of thing we're looking at. In other words, we wouldn't pursue somebody for not paying their parking ticket. Simply, if a vehicle doesn't stop and that's all we have, police services across Canada just terminate the chase. It isn't worth it.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Well, the next time I have a speeding ticket, I'm going to hop like a bunny.

The Chair: We'll get you.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jim Abbott: Awful large bunny.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: You hopped right into that one, Alcock.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Mr. Marceau or Mr. Bellehumeur, do you have anything?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): I will put my question to Mr. Nadon. That may be simpler.

As you stated in your brief, one of the purposes of Bill C-51 is to fight organized crime, and clause 51 deals specifically with money laundering. The notorious Lagana case, which everyone has heard of, has been mentioned.

Money laundering is quite a significant problem in our society. An article appeared last Monday about $1,000 bills. The article reported statements made by several police officers who said that the withdrawal of $1,000 bills from the market could help fight money laundering. That was also the opinion of the police officers to whom I spoke. Of course, it is easier to walk around with 10 1,000-dollar bills in one's pocket than a suitcase full of 20s and 50s.

You are both police officers. I would like to know if you think that this proposal put forward by several police departments, including the MUC, would have a satisfactory impact—not some magical effect but some impact—and could help fight money laundering.

Mr. André Nadon: To my mind, that's one solution among many. Of course, as you said, $1,000 bills increase the volume of money to be laundered.

Right now, there are provisions that force banks not to accept amounts of more than $10,000. Certain banks stay below that and have the customer fill out forms regarding the source of the money even for amounts lower than that.

These are means that could be made available to the police an effort to control money laundering.

Mr. Richard Marceau: So you're telling me it's no magic solution, but it could help.

Mr. André Nadon: It's no magic solution, but it is a solution among others.

Mr. Richard Marceau: All right. That was the only question I wanted to ask you. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bellehumeur, did you have any questions?

Mr. Alcock, hop to it.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Reg Alcock: I have to explain this. I've just begun here. They pick on me because I'm such a gentle soul.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: We always pick on the little guy.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Yes. In fact I could use some protection, so it's nice to have you here.

Voices: Oh, oh!

• 1035

Mr. Reg Alcock: I just have a quick question. I have a lot of sympathy for the points you're making about chases. My father was a chief of police in Winnipeg, and I grew up in RCMP barracks for a period of time, so I have some idea of what the guys on the force put up with all the time.

The question that gets raised, though, is the discretionary nature of a charge like that. There are the obvious cases, where somebody has committed a criminal act and takes off and acts in a very outrageous manner. I agree with you that there should be some additional penalty for that, the same way we have an additional penalty for someone who uses a gun in a crime, as opposed to somebody who doesn't. Differentiating these kinds of behaviours is useful.

But always at the front end of that is the question of whether you bound the discretion in any way. If somebody just fails to stop quickly, are they guilty of this offence? How do you limit it so that the next time I get angry when somebody stops me and I drive an extra 10 feet, I don't end up with an additional charge?

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: Well, short of writing the legislation, which we don't do—though sometimes we'd like to—

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: The key element, as in dangerous driving, is the imminent danger on the road, to citizens, to pedestrians, and to other drivers of motor vehicles.

Mr. Reg Alcock: So you'd follow the same kind of protocol as you would use in assessing a dangerous driving charge?

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: That's right. It can't be just some whimsical stop and somebody forgets that. It's where you present the danger to life.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Okay, thank you.

Mr. André Nadon: We also believe that a criminal offence in connection with high-speed chases would constitute some sort of deterrent.

Mr. Reg Alcock: But I thought people who engaged in high-speed chases were not rocket scientists; they didn't analyze these kinds of things; they tended to be—

Mr. André Nadon: Well, sometimes they do.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Saada and then Mr. Maloney.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I have a very quick question Madam Chair. You're proposing two amendments: one regarding high-speed chases and the other regarding attempts to disarm a police officer. In the second case, you're proposing sentences that would be consecutive to any other sentence imposed. In the first case, they would not be consecutive. Could you explain the rationale behind this difference?

Mr. André Nadon: If it's not consecutive, it's concurrent.

Mr. Jacques Saada: We agree about that.

Mr. André Nadon: So the sentence is served at the same time.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes. I understand that. But why are you suggesting that we specify, in one case, that it's consecutive and that, in the other case, it's not?

Mr. André Nadon: Because in this case, we want to make absolutely sure that it's added to the sentence given to an individual.

I don't know whether or not I'm explaining myself properly, but this becomes automatic, once you have disarmed a police officer, you're automatically given a two-year sentence and this sentence is consecutive to another sentence because, obviously, other violations or crimes may have been perpetrated.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I understand. I don't think that my question was sufficiently clear. I apologize. I will put my question another way.

Mr. André Nadon: Go ahead.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I am well aware of what is meant by a consecutive as opposed to a concurrent sentence. I would like to understand the logic which prompts you to suggest that a consecutive sentence be given whenever a police officer is disarmed but not in the other case, the one pertaining to high-speed chases. This is what I'm trying to understand. Not the difference between the two types of sentences, but why there is a difference between the two proposals.

Mr. André Nadon: The distinction between the two.

Mr. Jacques Saada: That's right.

Mr. André Nadon: First of all, we feel that disarming a police officer constitutes a serious offence. In the other cases, the matter can be left up to the judge's discretion. As was explained earlier, in high-speed chases, the severity of the offences or crimes that have been perpetrated vary and hence the severity of the sentences vary.

As the bill suggests, a chase resulting in injury may result in a ten-year prison sentence, I believe. Should there be a death, the sentence is prison for life. This is to clearly distinguish between the seriousness of each of these two offences.

• 1040

As far as disarming police officers is concerned, we feel that a two-year sentence should automatically be given regardless of the other sentences that may be added. I don't know if I'm explaining myself well.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, that's fine. Thank you very much. I believe that these two suggestions are worthy of consideration. I'm very happy to receive them.

As for the accelerated parole review process, the APR... How do you say that in French? I apologize, but we often work in English here. You have certain reservations with respect to the effectiveness of APR.

Mr. André Nadon: Are you talking about what we refer to as the accelerated—

Mr. Jacques Saada: —parole review. I've been given the French version 10 times and I forget the term every time. I don't know why. I have a problem with my memory.

I detected from your brief that you have some reservations and I would like you to explain why. I would like you to explain, in greater detail, why you have these reservations.

Mr. André Nadon: I will let my colleague reply.

[English]

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: Again I state, it's a step in the right direction, but this bill only deals with a criminal organization offence. It's a non-issue right now; that's my understanding. But it may not be a decade from now. So the baby is starting to walk. That's about it.

We haven't officially taken the position that it should affect other facets within the criminal justice system. We're saying simply that it's really a non-issue. However, we commend the committee for looking at this, and it's a step in the right direction.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Maloney.

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Referring to your suggested resolutions, I'll first deal with the one about attempting to disarm police officers. You talk about disarming them of “issued protective equipment”, and you talked about a firearm. Would any other items be in that definition of “protected equipment”, such as a club? How much protective equipment are you in fact issued?

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: You're probably alluding to pepper spray and the baton. We've left this fairly open, although the gist of this deals with the police service firearm, which of course can be a matter of life and death. I'm not suggesting that disarming a police officer of pepper spray doesn't have ramifications to it, but it's something we left out. We don't discuss pepper spray very well.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: I think it was intended for the police service firearm.

Mr. John Maloney: Okay, just for the firearm.

I notice that in both of your resolutions you have recommended that it be an offence over which the provincial court judge has exclusive or absolute jurisdiction. What's the rationale for that?

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: For section 553?

Mr. John Maloney: Yes, I'm sorry, for section 553.

• 1045

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: It simply would make it an indictable offence. In other words, it goes beyond provincial court jurisdiction. That's simply what we're suggesting.

Does that answer your question, Mr. Maloney?

Mr. John Maloney: It doesn't go beyond it; it says they would have it. The restriction is for them to have exclusive jurisdiction.

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: It's to add the above-noted offence to those offences over which the provincial court has absolute jurisdiction.

Mr. John Maloney: In other words, it would be within their jurisdiction, not beyond their jurisdiction.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): It wouldn't include judge and jury.

Mr. John Maloney: Is it about juries? Is that what the intent is?

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Maybe it's an election offence; maybe that's what they're saying.

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: I think you've hit it on the head, yes. It's for the election.

Mr. John McKay: Yes, that's it.

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: I'm sorry.

Mr. John McKay: Section 553 does not depend on the consent of the accused.

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: Right, exactly. Sorry about that.

Mr. John Maloney: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Are there any other questions?

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): On that point, I still haven't heard the rationale. Or are we going to just let it go?

The amendment offered here asks us to consider making this offence an exclusive provincial court jurisdiction. My question is, why would we make it an exclusive provincial court jurisdiction? Why wouldn't we make it like so many other offences, one where there's an election? I'm just curious, why the advice that it be exclusively provincial court?

Mr. Jim Gouk: It's inclusive rather than exclusive. It includes the province as well as the federal government, as opposed to excluding it. It depends on which court you're trying in.

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: I acknowledge that the rationale behind that may be exclusivity, or it may be simply in the first instance. I don't know. Maybe the provincial court judges can deal with it because....

Mr. Derek Lee: Well, it's clear that in most cases, provincial court disposition would be more expeditious, or could be more expeditious. But in any event, it's not 100% clear why that is suggested.

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: No, and there could be several reasons for that.

Mr. Derek Lee: And that's fine.

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: But it doesn't destroy the basic drive behind this resolution.

Mr. Derek Lee: No, I accept that. Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Lee.

I don't see any other questions. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming. It was nice to see you.

Mr. Jon Netelenbos: Thanks.

[Translation]

Mr. André Nadon: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Let's just rise for a minute while we get officials to the table, and then we can proceed. We have a little bit of business left over from yesterday, and then we can proceed to clause-by-clause.

• 1048

• 1101

The Chair: Here we are. We have officials from the Department of Justice and from Sol Gen. In addition to our witnesses from yesterday, who are back, we have Michel Laprade, who is legal counsel with the legal services unit of the Correctional Service of Canada; we have Denis Couillard, who is with the policy division of strategic planning and policy at the Correctional Service of Canada; and we have Donald Piragoff, who is general counsel with the criminal law policy section of the Department of Justice.

Welcome.

And we have our two old standbys here.

Mr. Ram, yesterday the minister took off and said you'd be back to respond to those two outstanding issues from yesterday.

Mr. Chris Ram (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): To face the music, as it were.

The Chair: Could you face the music and let us know if our gardens are safe from seizure?

Mr. Chris Ram: Two items were raised yesterday that don't relate to amendments. Other materials can be raised as we go through the clause-by-clause, but we undertook to provide information on two items.

Mr. McKay asked about correspondence relating to the exemptions to the gambling offences to include dice games—

The Chair: Did you get all my letters?

Mr. Chris Ram: —specifically about correspondence with Nova Scotia. We did an overnight search of the minister's correspondence records and could find nothing. We will check further, but as far as we know, there has been no correspondence, within the last year or year and a half, from Nova Scotia on that particular issue.

The Chair: But there's other correspondence on the issue.

Mr. Chris Ram: There may well be other correspondence on gambling in general.

This is a fairly specialized amendment that was taken up with the provinces, in the committee of senior officials and so forth, but it hasn't been a public issue, so it's not that surprising that there wouldn't be volumes of correspondence on the subject. We're not aware of any representations made by the government of the province either.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Chris Ram: The other issue that was raised was the possibility of amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to include a plant that was referred to in the Journal de Montréal two days ago.

We are still consulting. We undertook to consult with Health Canada. In view of the lateness of the hour, we weren't able to get anybody there last night, but we are continuing to talk to them today and will have an answer in a couple of days. But in the interim, we looked at the relevant provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ourselves, and we can advise the committee not to proceed with an amendment, for several reasons.

The first reason is that, as a matter of structure of the act as it is now, the addition of new controlled drugs or substances under the act is done by amending the schedules, and that's done by Governor in Council regulation. It's a delegated legislative power. So if the government decides to proceed with respect to this particular plant, it can be done by regulation, and as a matter of structure should probably not be done by statutory amendment.

As I said, we're still consulting with Health Canada. We'd also need to know more about the plant, obviously—how to describe it, what it does, and so forth.

• 1105

As a matter of policy, it would also, in our view, not be wise to proceed too quickly, simply because it appears to be an ornamental plant—and I base this on the newspaper article itself. If it were added to one of the eight schedules under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, things such as simple possession, trafficking, and possession for the purpose of trafficking would become offences. We could catch people who have them in their living rooms, or the local florist on the corner, if they have these things. We don't know how common it is. We'd have to find that out and undertake some kind of public education effort to make sure we don't catch people by surprise.

Having said that, we will continue to take the matter up with Health Canada, and we have sent them the newspaper article. If the plant represents a threat, they would presumably act on it accordingly.

The Chair: Okay, but to reassure Monsieur Bellehumeur, who's raised this issue, you're going to continue to look at it until you have a more definitive report for the committee? Is that correct?

Mr. Chris Ram: Yes.

The Chair: Then could you write to us so that we could table that response?

Mr. Chris Ram: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): I'd like to make a brief comment intended for Mr. Ram, who said that this is an ornamental plant. I understand what he's saying, but there is another pretty flower called a poppy and it can be found in certain flower beds, although it is illegal to grow this pretty flower in Canada. I doubt that the little 85-year-old lady who grows poppies in her flower beds has very many problems with the police. I therefore believe that we will able to combine the two should the department so wish.

[English]

Mr. Chris Ram: The point is well taken. It's not that we shouldn't take action against something because it's an ornamental plant. But because it's an ornamental plant, a lot of people might have it now, and changing its status from an ornamental plant to a prohibited substance—

I have background in firearms legislation, and we had the same problem. When you change the status of something, you have to make sure that the people who have it have some notice.

The Chair: Thank you.

Another issue was raised yesterday.

Michel.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Yes, we discussed Bill C-416 tabled by Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, I asked Mr. Roy to have a look at it and discuss it with me. I was suggesting an amendment to section 51 of Bill C-51, and I was expecting an answer from him today.

[English]

Mr. Chris Ram: If I remember correctly, this is the private member's bill that deals with accelerated parole review.

Voices: Yes.

Mr. Chris Ram: We would propose to take that up in the debate on clause 51. We have people here from Sol Gen to speak to that.

The Chair: Right. When we get to clause 51 we'll deal with it, Richard.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay.

The Chair: Here's how I think we should proceed. We know which clauses have amendments, because we have copies of proposed amendments with us, but Mr. Gouk wanted to have a brief discussion on the proposals of the Canadian Police Association.

Mr. Jim Gouk: One in particular.

The Chair: Okay. So, because that does not relate to any specific clause in the bill, I propose that we have this general discussion and then go to the clauses.

When we get to the clauses of the bill, my practice, as chair, is to lump clauses and pass them all at once, unless I have notice that there's something people want to discuss. So if, in addition to the amendments we have before us now, you want to discuss something specific—such as clause 51, where we want to have a discussion—just send a note up here so that I know and I won't railroad over it.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would just like to make sure that I've understood correctly. We can discuss amendments put forward by the Canadian Police Association, but we are not planning to make any decisions before we have had time to study them in depth and review their consequences. Is that correct? We are not going to be making an immediate decision on this.

[English]

The Chair: That's up to the committee, but Jim wants to make a pitch.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We will not proceed that quickly.

Mr. Jacques Saada: No, no, but I just wanted to make sure.

[English]

I just saw this today. Even though apparently there is some merit in the recommendation, I would like to have a fair chance to examine it in detail before I can make any commitment one way or the other on this. Would that be fair enough?

Mr. Jim Gouk: Well, that's what we can discuss. That's why I want to bring it up. If that's the resolution, then so be it.

• 1110

The Chair: I'll give Mr. Gouk the floor, and he can say what he has to say and you'll have an opportunity to respond to it. You have lots of people sitting beside you, so I think you're okay.

Go ahead.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Yes, you're well protected with the big bunny rabbit beside you.

The Chair: Let me just tell you where I'm going to stop. I'm going to stop at clauses 8, 11, 16, and 51.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Today?

The Chair: Yes, but somebody may want to raise something else. Just send a note up to me so I know to stop at those clauses. Otherwise, when this train leaves the station, she's leaving the station.

Okay, Mr. Gouk, you have the floor.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Thank you.

We have a difficulty as a committee. I certainly take appropriately the comments that were made, but nonetheless we accelerated the process. The Police Association had very little opportunity to bring their brief in. It may be that they should have put this in a long time ago, knowing that the bill existed, or even that it was in the thought stage.

We can say, “We don't care how good it is; you didn't follow the right process, so we're not going to let you put in something that has a lot of merit.” Or we can look at it and say, “This really has a lot of merit, and notwithstanding the fact that it's contrary to the normal process, we should consider it.”

In the two items they brought up, the second one was about disarming a police officer. There are a lot of sanctions. It's a serious offence even now. It's not identified specifically for that; it isn't concurrent sentencing. But there is provision and it is treated very seriously.

The first one was about high-speed chases. I can only speak from my own knowledge about this, but there's a tremendous problem with this, particularly in Surrey, British Columbia. There have been a horrendous number of problems. Up in Kamloops there was a very serious case. It is a problem, and the consequences right now are not significant, either in name or in sentence. What they bring in is very important. We need to have something out there that tells these people, “If you do this, there are consequences, and they're very serious consequences.”

Even in keeping with the comments made about the time to study it, I don't think there's a lot of impact. There's no domino effect to this, that if we put this in, it's going to cause all kinds of problems elsewhere. We're dealing with a specific item. Others may wish to argue that there are consequences to other areas that have to be looked into. I would suggest there aren't. Certainly I don't see them, and I would love to hear from anyone who wishes to refute this.

I would like to see if we can, as a committee, find some way to adopt this into this particular bill at this time. It's the appropriate place for it to be. I grant you it would have been better if it had been brought up ahead of time and we'd had more time to deal with this, but it's fairly straightforward, and it is serious enough that we should try to see if there's a way to put it in today.

The Chair: Can I just caution colleagues to keep something in mind? I hope you don't think I'm entering too much into the discussion, but keep in mind that in some other communities, there is a move to limit the police power to engage in high-speed chases. So you're entering into an area that is highly charged, particularly in parts of Ontario that I'm aware of, where private citizens have been killed by a high-speed chase that the police undertook over a very minor traffic offence, as opposed to a very major criminal offence.

So if we want to go down this road, I expect probably 10 or 12 members of this committee see the other side of this issue, and it's bigger than you think, in my view.

Let me go to Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Could I just respond to what you've said, since it was related to mine?

The Chair: Yes, sure.

Mr. Jim Gouk: I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but this will not change—

The Chair: This sanctions it. This sanctions a high-speed chase, politically.

Mr. Jim Gouk: This will not sanction, in my opinion, a high-speed chase. It doesn't say anything about giving carte blanche to the officers to proceed to chase. It says there are consequences for those who do it. Whether they get away at the time and are later apprehended when someone else spots the car or whatever....

The intent of a lot of law is to provide enough penalties, enough consequence, that it stops people from considering doing it. If you're impaired, why not take a run at it, if all you get is dangerous driving on top of your impaired? If it's a criminal offence with serious consequences, you may have a different frame of mind. It may, in some cases at least, cause people to think twice before they actually take that type of action.

• 1115

As for individual police regulation, they're still going to have their own procedures that say when you chase and when you don't. Chasing is a big problem. That's what I brought up with Surrey and Kamloops. In Kamloops, the RCMP themselves were the ones who hit and killed an innocent person. That's a separate matter, and this won't impact on that, except to the extent that it may stop some people from running in the first place. That's the only intent behind this.

The Chair: I've already ended the discussion, and I'll come back to Michel.

I won't rule yet, but I do have advice from the clerk that this is beyond the scope of this bill, and therefore this kind of amendment is probably out of order. But we have a few minutes, so let's hear what colleagues have to say, because it may be a subject we should take up at some point.

Michel.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: At first glance, Madam Chair, these amendments seem to deserve considerations, and we should probably be making the necessary changes to the Criminal Code. However, I would not want us to have only 24 hours to study them and review their consequences. Clearly, there are some consequences, and we should compare these cases to other similar offences, and so on.

Even though I am in favour of these amendments at first glance, I am not prepared to pass at this time such an amendment to this omnibus bill. I cannot do that at this time; my professional conscience requires that I at least consult some individuals and look at the consequences of the amendment.

I am not in a position today, to make a final decision about the amendments to sections 249 and 270. I repeat that I am very much in favour of these amendments, particularly given that the Joliette case that was just mentioned happened in the riding next to mine. I know the riding very very well. I also know the case very well and everything that happened as a result of it. As you put it so well, Madam Chair, whether we are talking about the Joliette case or any other case, people are wondering whether chases of this type are necessary. We must study this issue carefully, not just in ten minutes.

Madam Chair, I hope this will be a lesson to the committee for the rest of its mandate. We should never hear from witnesses on the day on which we are planning to do the clause-by-clause study of a bill. We should give ourselves at least one day to check on what our witnesses tell us. This would show consideration to the police officers and to other witnesses who appear before us. The situation is not too problematical this morning, because these witnesses often appear before us, they know how our committee works and they know that we are under time constraints. However, in the future, we should never hear from witnesses on a day on which we plan to do the clause-by-clause study.

[English]

The Chair: Michel, you raise a good point. Your latter point is a good one, and I'm gratified that you agree with me on the other point, and we're going to try. Let me say that Monday I'll meet with committee staff and next week we'll try to have a longer-range plan for our work until Christmas so that we can notify people that we're about to consider things they're interested in.

Now I have Derek Lee. I'm going to let the parliamentary secretary go last.

Derek.

Mr. Derek Lee: As much as the amendments proposed by the CPA.... In fact they're not even amendments; they're proposals for some kind of amendment. As we sit here today, we don't even have a drafted amendment.

I appreciate all of the issues involved in those, and although one might prima facie argue that nothing could possibly be outside the scope of an omnibus bill, it being omnibus by nature, in fact the bill is drafted, it does have four corners, and this subject matter is not in the bill. And we don't have an amendment here. Mr. Gouk isn't even moving one, as far as I know, but he is recommending that if we had had a chance to consider this, maybe we could have done something with it.

I submit we're in no position to consider them now, other than to take note of them as responsible, constructive suggestions for Criminal Code amendments in the future. It's totally out of order to try to wedge something into the clause-by-clause, which we're about to embark on now.

• 1120

The Chair: Mr. Saada, did you need to add anything to that?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Not really.

The Chair: I'm sure that your department is going to consider—

Mr. Jacques Saada: It's only a matter of fairness. We need to take time to analyze things. Our major concern is not timing; our major concern is the essence of what we are deciding.

The Chair: Thank you.

I don't think we need to have any other conversation on this. Jim, I'll let you sum up.

Mr. Jim Gouk: What Michel said was a very valid point. We agreed to have them here at the start of this meeting, and the fact that we used that timing is what in essence is prohibiting them from getting this in. If that's the way it has now worked out, then so be it.

The Chair: Jim, they understand. They do what a lot of groups do, and it's a legitimate thing. They come here to comment on the bill and to flag it with future things. But if they really meant in their hearts that we should amend the bill, there would have been a draft amendment here for us and they would have contacted opposition or someone to try to negotiate it.

Mr. Jim Gouk: That's correct.

The Chair: It's a very sophisticated group that came before us this morning.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): They know the rules.

The Chair: All right; we're finished with that.

Now I'm going to start this way. I'm going to group clauses. I don't have notice of any other clause that anyone wants to discuss, so I'll group clauses 1 through 7 inclusive.

(Clauses 1 to 7 inclusive agreed to)

The Chair: If anyone wants a voiced vote on any of these, let me know.

(On clause 8)

The Chair: On clause 8, we have a proposed amendment from Mr. Gouk of the Reform Party.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Thank you, Madam Chair. We actually have two under clause 8. I think the first one—

The Chair: Yes, we're at R-1.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Basically right now we have a situation where we have said there is a minimum sentence for people who solicit somebody into prostitution by use of violence or intimidation. We recognize the seriousness of this and we have a minimum five-year sentence. But we don't have any minimum sentence for people who still make use of young people, underage prostitutes, to live off the avails of their prostitution.

We've recognized that where violence is involved, there is a minimum five-year sentence. There should be something for others. What we're proposing in this amendment is to put a minimum sentence in for those who live off the avails of child prostitution. Recognizing the differential between violence and non-violence, our amendment would put a one-year minimum sentence for someone living off the avails of prostitution who does not fall into the other category dealing with violence or intimidation.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gouk.

Ms. Bakopanos, do you want to respond for the government on this?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes, I would like to respond, because that question was raised both with the officials when they came before us and also with the minister yesterday. I don't think there was at all any indication that we're not interested in looking at this issue. Quite to the contrary, the minister made the point that there is a working paper at the moment, which is being discussed in fact at the federal-provincial conference that is going on.

We feel it would be premature, before having further discussion with the other provincial ministers of justice, to introduce this at this time. But she did take note of it, and there is, as I said, a working group—a task force in fact—on child prostitution. It is looking at various issues, such as changing child prostitution to child abuse within the Criminal Code. There are all sorts of different—

The Chair: Penalties?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes, penalties also, and sentencing. So it's a little premature at this point to make that change in this omnibus bill. We would prefer to continue the discussions with the provinces to arrive at an agreement.

Mr. Jim Gouk: In response to that, the point was raised before, when we were dealing with the high-speed chase, that it was maybe outside the normal parameters of this bill in any case and there wasn't sufficient time to study it. That has some validity.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jim Gouk: In this particular case, though, it is dealing exactly with the subject matter. We're already dealing with that very nature of things, where someone is living off child prostitution but has used violence or intimidation to bring them into that.

This is just a piece, not off the other side of the page, but in fact from the same page exactly. We're saying, in keeping with that, what about those who slide through the very crack that we put into this, by saying there wasn't any evidence of intimidation or violence, but nonetheless they're living off child prostitution? It's part of that same sentence, almost, and I think it is appropriate that this committee consider it at this time.

• 1125

We can do all kinds of things later, in any number of things. This deals with the specific subject matter of this legislation—the very clause in fact in which we have looked at it and said, if there's violence, here's the minimum sentence. So we're just saying, if there's not violence but you're still living off prostitution, here's a lower minimum sentence.

It's very compatible, and I don't see a reason to wait on it, because we are interested in doing justice. We're interested in trying to reduce and end child prostitution. The committee has already taken a step in that direction; this legislation has taken that step. I'm asking simply that we just go a few inches further, in the same direction exactly.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I don't want to belittle his point—

The Chair: Go ahead.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: —but there was never any discussion that this was outside the scope. I don't think I even said that to begin with.

The Chair: No.

Mr. Jim Gouk: No, no, I'm not suggesting that.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I didn't say that or make allusions to what was discussed earlier.

Mr. Jim Gouk: No, I'm saying the other one was, but this isn't.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: There are consequences of putting minimum sentences into the Criminal Code. The officials can speak to it if they'd like, to get the technical part, because I'm not a lawyer, but it's only fair.

Discussions are ongoing at this point in time to try to get some agreement with the provincial justice ministers in terms of what will be a minimum sentence. You may feel it's 30 days. They may feel it's two years. I don't know.

I'm not trying to in any way say that this will not be dealt with by the government. Quite the contrary, the government is concerned by this. But there has to be an overall look at the whole picture of child prostitution in this country, and not just trying to plug a hole that exists with this ominous bill.

I don't know if the officials would like to add anything technical.

The Chair: Would you like to comment, Mr. Piragoff?

Mr. Donald K. Piragoff (General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a couple of points with respect to this issue. The original amendment proposed by the government deals with the issue of communicating for the purpose or obtaining services of a person under the age of 18. So it is clearly dealing with the person who is trying to obtain the services of a prostitute, not the issue of living off the avails. That is, we're dealing with the so-called customers, as opposed to those referred to as the pimps. To that extent, the proposed amendment is dealing with a subject matter that is different from what the government has proposed and from what is proposed in the bill.

The subject matter in the bill—that is, the question of communicating for the purposes or obtaining services—is an issue that was the subject of extensive federal-provincial-territorial discussion. As a result of recommendations made by the provinces, the government decided to proceed to rectify a problem with the existing legislation concerning that type of conduct. Clearly there are other types of conduct involved in this section, such as living off the avails of prostitution.

The CPA said today that philosophically they are in favour of the motion that has been put forward, and I note that they said “philosophically”. I think anyone philosophically is in favour of ensuring adequate punishment for an offence. The question is how to do that in a way that does not upset any other balances within the system.

With respect to this proposal, at least from the side of the Department of Justice, we would need to consult the attorneys general about would be the likelihood of a successful prosecution if there were a minimum penalty, and how much of a minimum penalty would deter a successful prosecution because the judges would consider that the minimum penalty is too high for the conduct and therefore would be more likely to acquit than to convict. Provincial correctional officials would also need to be consulted, because the types of minimums being put forward are in the range where a person would be subject to incarceration in a provincial institution.

The minister said yesterday that the particular subject matter of this proposal—that is, living off the avails—was dealt with by Parliament a year or two years ago to create a minimum penalty for the most serious aggravated cases, that is, situations where compulsion and force were used. That is a clear situation where a minimum penalty is justified in all cases. It's unknown what other situations might require a minimum as opposed to some other type of disposition.

The minister also indicated that the matter is currently under review by a federal-provincial-territorial working group. She indicated that this is not just a legal or criminological problem; it is a social problem. She said all levels of government have a piece of the solution, and we should await the advice of the provincial attorneys general before we move, since they are also involved in the process of trying to develop solutions.

• 1130

So from the point of view of the department, we find the proposal interesting, but it is a proposal that we're going to have to take back to the provincial attorneys general and to provincial correctional officials to get their views.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Piragoff.

Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm not arguing in favour of the amendment, but I just want to deal with the one point on minimum sentences generally.

I've heard time and time again the argument that if you have minimum sentences, then the judiciary are going to acquit rather than convict because they disagree with the conduct. We have to remember that those two functions should be separated: the determination of guilt or innocence and then sentencing. I don't accept that argument as a valid argument against minimum sentences generally.

The Chair: We should keep in mind one other argument, though. When we change this stuff and cram it down the throats of provincial attorneys general, we're also meddling in their budgets. Even a 30-day minimum, with a frequently occurring offence, can cost a lot of money in a provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Piragoff.

Mr. Donald Piragoff: I just have a clarification, Madam Chair. I don't want to be seen as saying that the federal government necessarily agrees with any of the issues that provincial officials might raise, such as the reluctance to prosecute that. It's just a concern that has been raised to us before. We are not saying we agree with it or disagree with it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Donald Piragoff: We want that clarified for the record.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Donald Piragoff: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. John McKay.

Mr. John McKay: I have a point of clarification, just so that I understand the proposed amendment. It reads, in part:

Notwithstanding paragraph 1(j), every person who lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person who is under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an indictable offence....

Paragraph 212(1)(j) says:

(j) lives wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Doesn't your amendment then limit it to people under the age of 18?

Mr. Jim Gouk: I don't have the entire thing here, so I can't tell you. I can only tell you the intent clearly is to make an addition to deal specifically with child prostitution.

Mr. John McKay: So yours would be subparagraph 212(1)(j)(i) then. There would be two separate offences: living off the avails of prostitution and then living off the avails of prostitution of someone under 18.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Yes, under 18.

Mr. John McKay: Okay, because I don't think that's the way your amendment reads.

The Chair: In any event, is the discussion finished?

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Let's do R-2.

Mr. Gouk.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Thank you.

This also deals with the minimum sentencing provision. This is for someone who obtains the services of a prostitute under the age of 18. Again, we have a maximum sentence here, but we have no minimum.

Our concern was almost touched on in the last proposed amendment, and it is this. Too often the jurisdictions decide a slap on the wrist is adequate. That does not provide incentive to stay away from child prostitutes. Our whole intent is to reduce and ultimately end child prostitution.

So I would like to see a minimum sentence of 30 days on the first offence and 90 days on any subsequent offence by that same person. Obviously there are a lot of teeth in there for the maximum, but....

Judges decide guilt. That's what they're supposed to decide, and then they're supposed to sentence in accordance with parameters that we as legislators have set, after consultation with the public and all other appropriate people. We have a responsibility to set those parameters in such a manner that they do meet the objectives we set out to meet, which are to reduce and ultimately end the offence.

So in keeping with that, we do need to have some minimum specified so that a slap on the wrist is not an option.

The Chair: Mr. Lee and then Mr. Saada.

• 1135

Mr. Derek Lee: I don't like this amendment. The concept comes from the desire to firm up penalties for those who sexually abuse or use our children, i.e. those under 18 years of age. But in the existing omnibus amendment to the code, we are augmenting the existing offence from obtaining the services of a person under 18 years of age to an offence that includes communicating for the purpose. And the amendment would add to that offence—to the new, augmented offence—a minimum punishment.

So we have a scenario developing where, if I may use the term, the john communicates, is maybe not even sure of the age of the person, male or female, and to that relatively low-threshold act—although we're criminalizing it, because we regard it as antisocial—we are at the same time, under this amendment, attaching a minimum sentence. I'm not so sure that at this threshold of communicating, we would want to attach a minimum sentence.

Recall that at this point, we really haven't looked at the whole concept of minimum sentences, because the bill itself doesn't purport to deal with minimum sentence impositions, as I've read it. So it's inappropriate to load up the bill with the new offence of communicating, and then, without looking at it really closely, attach a minimum sentence to the act of communicating to a minor for the sexual purpose.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Just before I go to Mr. Saada, I assume, Ms. Bakopanos, that you want to apply to this topic the other comments that you and your officials made with respect to the first amendment, so we don't need to go there.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes, thank you.

The Chair: Thanks.

Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I have two things. First of all, in terms of the philosophy underlying this amendment and the philosophy underlying all kinds of proposals in the way of heavier sentencing and so on, I would like to take advantage of the presence of the people from the department to ask, is there any study that would demonstrate the deterring effect of harsher penalties or longer sentences? Are there studies that demonstrate either that or the contrary, for that matter? Is it because we're imposing harsher and harsher sentences that we deter more and more?

Ms. Jodie van Dieen (Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): With regard to that question, some studies have shown that deterrence of criminal conduct is not based on the length or severity of the sentence, but more on the fact of being charged, convicted, and processed through the court system, and that some sanction is attached to your criminal conduct. So there's no direct correlation between making it a—

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, that was my understanding, but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't off track with that.

Second, I personally believe in the concept of restorative justice. Restorative justice makes the assessment of the harm done paramount. Could you explain to me how this amendment would address this concern?

Mr. Jim Gouk: I don't know if I follow the exact intent of your question.

The harm that's done, obviously, is this. Where there's no consumer, there's no reason for the goods to be available. In any manufacturing, you don't make an item that nobody will buy. You don't set yourself up, train yourself, and equip yourself to provide a service that nobody wants. So the intent behind this is to remove the value for such a service being conducted in the first place.

• 1140

First of all, in terms of organized prostitution, you are less likely to have people trying to bring people into prostitution, particularly young people, if you have provided enough deterrents to the average person availing themselves of such a service. That is first and most primary.

Second, many young people find their way into prostitution because they run off. It's something that's there; it's a possibility for them. They find their way into that type of lifestyle—and all the other things that ensue from it, all the other problems they get into as a result of that lifestyle—because they're able to. Pure and simple, they're able to. There are willing customers, and therefore that opportunity to fall into that lifestyle was there for them.

The intent behind anything we come up with in the way of laws and sentences dealing with child prostitution is to put a deterrent to the entire activity, not just to the john, if you would, but every aspect of it. It's not that everybody else is fine, but it's the johns we're going to get after. What roadblocks do you put in the way of this type of action even being successful?

This is just one more step in doing that. The argument is that the very fact that they're charged and their name is in the paper can make them think twice about doing it. I agree; it does. But this might make them think just that little bit harder again. Not only are they going to get their name in the paper.... For some people that's critical. For an MP, can you imagine if your name was in the paper because you were picked up and charged with availing yourself of child prostitution? But if you were going to be put in jail for 30 days.... That's just one step further down the road, and it's a step in the right direction.

The Chair: We're moving into a more general, philosophical discussion on a Thursday. On Thursdays in this committee, we're not allowed to have general philosophical discussions.

Mr. Bellehumeur, I'm fondling my gavel, and you have just a couple of minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: My comments will be very brief, Madam Chair. I think amendments R-1 and R-2 are both good to the extent that all cases of prostitution are analyzed. I would go further, because I am among those in my caucus who advocate this type of thing. If ever the government wanted to legalize prostitution, these amendments could be included in the Criminal Code as regards young people, but as part of a comprehensive reworking of the Code. Given the current provisions of the Criminal Code, there is no point in going further.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: That is what we said.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Seeing no more hands, I will ask—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Are you in favour of legalizing prostitution?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Personally, yes.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Oh, we will be able to do business together.

[English]

The Chair: Order, order.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: I'm on the record now, Michel.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur:

[Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: Will the Province of Quebec please come to order?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: See? We're much more progressive in Quebec. We know that.

The Chair: Shall amendment R-2 carry?

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 11)

The Chair: Madame Bakopanos, would you please speak to amendment G-1 in clause 11?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: Yes. This amendment comes from a letter the minister received from Barreau du Québec saying that there was a small omission. We would like to add the words “reasonable grounds”, based on the fact that we want to make the issuing of warrants consistent with the charter. Normally the judge would probably read into the warrant “reasonable grounds”, but just to make it clear, we felt it important to underline within the amendment “reasonable grounds”, which is now missing from the actual draft of clause 11.

I don't know if the officials want to add anything.

The Chair: Mr. Ram.

Mr. Chris Ram: Only to thank the Barreau du Québec for their intervention. It came quite late in the day, but better late than never.

The Chair: Right. Is there further discussion? Fine.

Shall amendment G-1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 11 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 12 to 15 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 16)

The Chair: Now we're at clause 16, and Madame Bakopanos, you have something to say about clause 16.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: There's no amendment. I think we can proceed to the vote. I already indicated that the government would like to have this clause removed from the omnibus bill.

• 1145

Mr. Derek Lee: Madam Chairman, could I have an explanation?

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. It's been put on the record in some detail on two other occasions, but we'll give the explanation.

Mr. Derek Lee: I was here for part of it.

The Chair: Go ahead. I'll go to Mr. Ram first and then Ms. Bakopanos.

Mr. Chris Ram: The history is this. When the bill was put together, a package of amendments dealing with mineral-related offences was put in in order to expand the scope to cover diamond mining and the processing of diamonds, because that's now becoming an industry in the Northwest Territories. As part of that, there was some concern about the trafficking in diamonds and the use of diamonds as a medium of exchange by organized crime.

The thinking early in the development of the bill was to include a provision that would have given the federal and provincial attorneys general concurrent jurisdictions to prosecute mineral offences so that they could deal together with cases where organized crime was involved. The assumption was that they would probably originate in the Northwest Territories, because that's where the diamonds originate—and the federal Attorney General has jurisdiction there—and that they would probably involve either multiple jurisdictions within Canada or international organized crime of some sort.

Those concerns are still there, but we don't know that's going to become a problem at this point. The mine just opened about two weeks ago. There were concerns from the Government of Quebec about creating a new form of federal prosecutorial jurisdiction. As a result of those concerns, the minister agreed to the withdrawal of the provision from the bill.

Mr. Derek Lee: Do I take it then that there does not exist in the Criminal Code now a similar concurrent prosecutorial jurisdiction for any other commodities or criminal acts?

Mr. Chris Ram: There is one other that I know of; it was enacted by Parliament two years ago in Bill C-95, in the organized crime amendments, but that involves criminal organization offences where one or more of the predicate offences is a non-Criminal Code offence, so essentially there is some federal jurisdiction and some provincial jurisdiction. That provision allows the federal Attorney General to prosecute in those cases. Other than that, I'm not aware of any.

Mr. Derek Lee: So the public isn't going to get procedurally less standing in the wind here with this deletion?

Mr. Chris Ram: No. As the minister said in her appearance, if the use of uncut diamonds by organized crime becomes a problem—and it is a potential problem—then we'll meet with the provinces and work out how best to deal with it. There are other ways to deal with it than a statutory amendment, or one could be brought forward. We'll sort it out when it becomes a problem.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you.

The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Lee, for getting that on the record.

(Clause 16 negatived)

(Clauses 17 to 50 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 51)

The Chair: On clause 51, we have amendment BQ-1. Monsieur Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: As I was saying yesterday, the amendment we are suggesting to clause 51 of Bill C-51 is the same as that contained in Bill C-416, which was tabled by the Bloc Québécois. Bill C-416 would amend exactly the same subparagraphs and broaden the number of cases already identified in Bill C-51.

Amendment BQ-1 would remove any reference to section 743.6 of the Criminal Code in proposed subparagraph 125(1)(a)(iv) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

The present wording of the bill is as follows:

(iv) an offence set out in Schedule II in respect of which an order has been made under section 743.6 of the Criminal Code,

• 1150

This becomes somewhat cumulative. The objective of the Bloc's motion is to eliminate that effect. It would apply in cases of offences mentioned in Schedule II. I presented this to the minister yesterday. She suggested thinking about it overnight and doing some additional checking. I suppose you are here to respond to me this morning.

Is this done, and would it be broader than what is stated here? My fear is that cases such as Lagana may get away from us, as they did when we introduced the accelerated parole review procedures. I was sitting in the same seat and I asked questions about this. I was very reluctant, and I was told that this provision would cover cases of this type. We have seen that some clever lawyer somewhere got his client through the loopholes in the justice system. Today, we are trying to have such a big net that no one will be able to fall through a loophole in it.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Piragoff, does the Solicitor General's department have anything to say about this?

Mr. Donald Piragoff: I was just going to introduce them on this issue, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Donald Piragoff: As a result of the questions raised to the minister yesterday, we contacted the Solicitor General's department. As the committee will remember, this amendment was at the instigation of the Solicitor General, who had asked the committee for some forbearance to proceed with a particular amendment in advance of the review that was proceeding and that this committee is seized with. Given those circumstances, we've asked representatives of the Solicitor General's department to be present today to actually respond to these questions directly.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Couillard (Portfolio Manager, Policy Division, Strategic Planning, Correctional Service of Canada): Good morning. Since I'm not a lawyer, I will not give you a technical-legal answer. I am a criminologist. The issue is exactly the one you just mentioned. Our major concern is that in an attempt to catch all the big fish, we might expand the net so much that we will catch all the small fry, for whom, in accordance with the spirit of the Corrections Act, we should be introducing measures that will facilitate much more effective rehabilitation.

As was just pointed out, your committee will soon be reviewing the entire Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I think this issue has some very broad implications. For example, each year, between 650 and 700 offenders who are serving an initial federal sentence for offences set out just under Schedule II are admitted into the Correctional Service. The vast majority of these people serve relatively short sentences—between two and four years—precisely because the offences they committed, as determined by the judge and at his or her discretion, had less serious consequences than the Lagana case or cases involving organized crime. In such cases, the judge does not impose this extension of the eligibility date.

Let me give you another example. Every year, of the 700 individuals who come into the system for sentences imposed for offences set out in Schedule II, who are serving their first federal term, 60 to 70 of them are serving sentences longer than eight years. Clearly, those individuals committed crimes with much more serious, harmful consequences for society.

The attempt here is to broaden a provision of the Act through an omnibus bill. This amendment would have a very significant economic and social impact on many individuals. We think an amendment of this type should be studied in the context of the review of the Corrections Act as a whole. The provision was put forward to target cases of organized crime, cases of criminal organization offences. I think that was the government's concern.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Chair, we agree that section 743.6 does not apply solely to cases of organized crime.

Mr. Denis Couillard: No.

• 1155

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: In that case, it's cumulative. After all, "An offence set out in Schedule II" is not a minor offence. We are talking about drug trafficking, exporting and importing, cultivation or laundering the proceeds of crime. Do the small fry do that kind of thing?

Mr. Denis Couillard: There are all kinds of people involved. It's very broad.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: If we talked about someone found guilty of an offence set out in Schedule II and sentenced to ten years imprisonment or five years, would we not be expanding the provision as much?

Mr. Denis Couillard: Definitely. That's what I was saying a few moments ago. Certainly. But even so, I think the implications of all that are quite major, and should be considered as part of the review of the entire Act you are going to be conducting very soon.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Chair, my other question is as follows.

You too have mentioned the Lagana case. I don't know whether it's because I mentioned it or because you are already familiar with it. I'm sure you're familiar with it.

Mr. Denis Couillard: Yes.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Do you think the Lagana case would be covered with a change such as this one? Would we have that assurance this time?

Mr. Michel Laprade (Legal Counsel, Correctional Service of Canada): I wouldn't give that assurance.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: If you were a member of Parliament, would you put your seat on the line?

Mr. Michel Laprade: I wouldn't give that assurance, and I wouldn't put my seat on the line. Let me explain why.

The proposed amendment, which covers organized crime offences, requires proof at the time of sentencing, during the trial, that the offence was committed in association with, on behalf of, or within what the Criminal Code defines as an organized crime offence. In fact, it covers all the offences.

Section 2, which defines organized crime offenses, is not restrictive as to the type of offence committed. So, it could be an act of violence, fraud, just as it could be a drug-related offence. But all offences committed for the benefit of a criminal group, all organized crime offences, are covered by that section. So, the proposed amendment basically covers the groups. On the other hand, during the trial, one must demonstrate that it was an organized crime offence.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: If I understand correctly, the Lagana case would only be covered by subparagraph (v). It would not be covered by subparagraph (iv).

Mr. Michel Laprade: That's right.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Since we're already at subparagraph (v), here's my other question. I'll be faster later on. Ever since the definition of "organized crime" was adopted, do you know how many times the courts have had to deal with such cases?

Mr. Michel Laprade: No.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Would you believe me if I said that there had not been any?

Mr. Michel Laprade: It's quite likely that there haven't been any so far, or not very many, because this is a new provision.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That has been in place for two years.

Mr. Michel Laprade: Two years. But as far as we are concerned, this is the first stage, a step we have taken to target organized crime offences.

As for the complete review of the Act and the accelerated parole review, the objective at this stage was to review these issues when the Act is reviewed, after five years, in other words, during the review that is coming up soon.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That hasn't convinced me, but...

[English]

The Chair: All right.

Shall amendment BQ-1 carry?

(Amendment negatived on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Amendment R-3?

Mr. Jim Gouk: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll make this very brief.

Basically we have a provision of accelerated parole, which gets people out very quickly after sentence. People who commit violent offences are excluded from access to that accelerated parole. The amendment is to include in that exclusion people who are convicted of trafficking or importing drugs.

• 1200

Unless there is a need to rebut anything that anyone else says, that's all I have.

The Chair: Does anyone have a comment on the government side? Mr. Bellehumeur first.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I've asked other people the same question a little while ago, but I would like the departmental officials to tell me whether they know if the courts have looked at the definition of an organized crime offence. That's my first question.

Secondly, can the officials give me a guarantee, beyond all reasonable doubt, that cases such as the Lagana case will be covered by the amendment found in clause 51? The other witnesses have already answered, so I would like to direct that one to the officials.

[English]

The Chair: Then let's go with a response to what Mr. Gouk is proposing, and then Mr. Bellehumeur's concerns.

Mr. Ram did you have a comment, or Mr. Piragoff?

Mr. Donald Piragoff: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The comments of the officials from the Solicitor General with respect to the first proposed amendment apply equally to this one. There is a review. The debate and the views that have been expressed are valid, and these are issues that should be studied in more detail in the course of the review.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Ram, did you have anything to add? All right.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I said that they were not very reassuring.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: I have a question about clause 51, because I don't have the full act in front of me. The added subparagraph refers to a criminal organization offence. Who would determine whether or not a criminal organization offence would have happened under that subparagraph? Is it the Parole Board, is it CSC, or is it the original judicial determination?

Mr. Chris Ram: The way “criminal organization offence” is defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code, there are two ways in which the offender can be convicted.

One of them is under a specific offence of participating in the activities of a criminal organization. That's a separate offence. If there were a conviction for that, it would be the conviction itself that would stand as a judicial finding, that there was an organized crime involvement. Then that would trigger the accelerated parole review exclusion that's in the bill.

The other way it would work under the same definition is if the accused is convicted of some other offence—fraud, theft, drug trafficking, money laundering, or whatever—that's committed in support of or for the benefit of a criminal organization. In that case the conviction would not necessarily include a finding that it was done for the benefit of the criminal organization; it's only necessary to prove the offence itself.

In such cases it's for the crown then to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at the sentencing stage, as an aggravating factor on sentencing, that there was an organized crime involvement. There's provision for that in the Criminal Code. In such cases that finding on sentence then goes to the Correctional Service of Canada, and that triggers the accelerated parole review exclusion that's in the bill.

Mr. Derek Lee: Well, in the good old days, the National Parole Board used to take criminal organization relationships into account on an informal basis. But now I gather what you're saying is that even with this amendment, it's not open to the Parole Board to make a determination that a criminal organization offence was involved; there must be something in the criminal conviction and sentencing process to hang your hat on.

Mr. Chris Ram: I don't think this replaces what's already there. It's simply that if the section 2 criminal organization offence is triggered in the laying of charges and the findings of the court on trial and sentencing, then that additional information goes through the Correctional Service of Canada to the Parole Board. Whatever other information they may have wouldn't be excluded by that.

Mr. Derek Lee: But what if the Parole Board were to conclude at a hearing, if the issue came up, that the offence for which the individual had been convicted was, in their determination, based on evidence put before them or that they had in front of them, a criminal organization offence, without the offence having been originally a conviction offence or a sentencing determination? Is that not open here? This doesn't say who would make that determination. I put it to you, wouldn't it be open for the Parole Board to reach that conclusion and therefore exclude the operation of the APR?

• 1205

Mr. Donald Piragoff: Madam Chair, we have experts from the Correctional Service who are familiar with the Parole Board and the legislation. Maybe we could ask them to respond to Mr. Lee's questions, since it's their legislation.

Mr. Denis Couillard: I would just like to confirm what was just mentioned, that these dispositions in the Criminal Code do not limit the risk assessment that both CSC and the National Parole Board conduct when the offender first arrives under our jurisdiction—at the intake—as well as when there are considerations for conditional release.

It does, however, have an implication on the entitlement to an accelerated parole review or not. The accelerated parole review has a different releasing criteria in the CCRA; the assessment is based on the risk of future violence. If there is information—not necessarily evidence in the sense of the rules of evidence, but information—that there are links to organized crimes and that these links can be established to future violence, that information is sufficient for CSC to recommend that the release not be directed. I believe this has been used in a number of cases. Therefore it's up to the National Parole Board to decide whether or not the release will be directed.

Secondly, if there is a release, it can be used as well to determine the conditions of the release—the conditions of supervision.

Mr. Derek Lee: I'm not so sure you answered my question, though. I understand what you've said, but because I don't have in front of me the whole of section 125 of the CCRA, I'm asking if the determination of whether or not a criminal organization offence took place could be made by the Parole Board or by CSC itself as they determine eligibility for APR.

Mr. Denis Couillard: The answer is no. The exclusion from APR is based on the sentence imposed by the judiciary.

Mr. Derek Lee: Can you point me to the section that says what you've just concluded?

Mr. Michel Laprade: Section 125 provides for accelerated parole review, and it includes the exclusion. Any offence listed under these exclusions won't process through the accelerated parole review process. Therefore somebody who commits a murder is excluded by way of section 125, but murder is not determined by CSC or the board; it's determined by a sentence imposed by the court. In the same way, a gang or a criminal organization offence is defined by the code and imposed in sentencing by a court.

These sentencing reasons that we receive, by virtue of one section of the Criminal Code that requires the court to transmit these things to CSC, allow CSC then to determine whether or not the offence and the sentencing reasons point to a criminal organization offence. If it points to one, the person is excluded, and he doesn't get the review for accelerated parole. If it doesn't point to that, then he goes through the process of accelerated review. But that doesn't mean it ends there, because the National Parole Board will then determine whether there is a possibility of future violence linked to possible criminal organization activities.

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, but you have said that it is not only a criminal organization offence that will exclude the person from APR; you've also said a criminal organization sentence will exclude the person from APR. Well, the subparagraph I'm looking at refers only to criminal organization offences, not criminal organization sentences.

• 1210

So if we can read into this proposed subparagraph 125(1)(a)(v) a criminal organization sentence in addition to a criminal organization offence, why can we not also read into it a criminal organization finding by the Parole Board or CSC?

Mr. Michel Laprade: We already have. When we refer in proposed subparagraph 125(1)(a)(v) to a criminal organization offence, this is defined by the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code defines a criminal organization offence as two things: the sentence under section 467.1 and any other offence—

Mr. Derek Lee: Okay, that's it.

Mr. Michel Laprade: So it's already covered. Both aspects are covered.

A voice: The definition is in section 2 of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Derek Lee: Yes, thank you. I got the answer.

The Chair: You got it; all right.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Could I just say one thing in summation?

The Chair: Yes, please.

Mr. Jim Gouk: As I understand it, the Parole Board can still turn people down when they come to them, for whatever reason, but this provides greater certainty; it says it will happen, because they won't be eligible in the first place. The final thing I would add is this was asked for by the Canadian Police Association, and by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have also publicly requested that this be put into the act.

The Chair: Okay. Those in favour of amendment R-3?

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: BQ-2, Monsieur Bellehumeur.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: This amendment is similar to my first one. This time, I'm referring to section 463 of the Criminal Code, which covers attempts, conspiracies and accessories.

The paragraphs of the Corrections and Condition Release Act that are affected are 1(e), 2(f) and 3(e). All these paragraphs clearly have to do with laundering the proceeds of crime. Once again, it's a matter of tightening the mesh so that cases such as Lagana or other people who might attempt to conspire or launder money or other proceeds of crime are covered.

Often people say that you can't be too tough on crime. We want to add something more here.

[English]

The Chair: Just so we're focused on this specific amendment, I take it that the general comments we had with respect to the other amendment apply. Everybody is agreeing, so let's just talk about any new comments you might have specific to this amendment. If you have nothing to add to your previous comments, that's okay.

Go ahead.

Mr. Michel Laprade: No.

The Chair: Sol Gen, nothing to add?

AG, nothing to add?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It's still too broad.

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Laprade: Once again, we are getting right to the very heart of the review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The process is supposed to get underway in the months to come. In my opinion, that's when we should be discussing the broader issues. In this case, we would be adding a provision to the Act that once again would substantially change the accelerated parole review beyond what we were trying to do here, which was to deal with organized crime.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That's the reason. You don't want to deal solely with organized crime. You don't really care about the rest for the time being, because the whole thing is going to be reviewed eventually.

Mr. Michel Laprade: I wouldn't say that we don't really care. On the contrary, we have...

[English]

The Chair: Wait a minute here. This committee is going to review it in any event, so this issue is still very much alive, Michel, and we'll be expecting to have it raised then. In the meantime, if there's no further discussion, shall proposed amendment BQ-2 pass?

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

• 1215

(Clauses 51 to 55 inclusive agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House with amendments?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Can I just ask, is there any member of the government side who will be in the House tomorrow?

Mr. Lee, would you do us the favour of reporting the bill to the House tomorrow?

Mr. Derek Lee: Certainly.

The Chair: Thank you. Then the bill will be reported tomorrow.

I thank officials and colleagues.

We're adjourned.