Justice Committee on Feb. 1st, 2007

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

All right.

I'd rather like to hear your comments on the first questions that I asked and to enable the other members of the committee to hear from you.

[D/Commr Pierre-Yves Bourduas]

That's perfect, madam.

I'll give the perspective from the RCMP, and I'm sure Jamie will be more than happy to complement my reply.

As regards the national repository of case law that applies to certain organized crime cases, there are people at the RCMP working for the legal services who review each of the decisions. They outline their involvement in police operations, taking internal RCMP policies into account. In the circumstances, the repository is applied internally and is available to 16,000 RCMP police officers in the field.

Jamie, I invite your comments in relation to CACP and its approach, because CACP has also these types of registry looking at the impact of organized crime and the legal decisions.

Jamie, I would invite your comments in relation to this, if you wish to do so.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

And on evidence.

[Chief Jamie Graham]

I'll address all your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

We are running a little short of time here, and there are other questioners who would like to participate.

[Chief Jamie Graham]

Let me just respond quickly to your question on information sharing. Don't believe what people tell you. We share information appropriately on a case-by-case basis. I've never had a case not proceed because the Mounties wouldn't tell us things or we wouldn't tell them. That's a fallacy. People tell you that. There are isolated cases in which it might not happen, but generally.... In fact in British Columbia we're mandated to all be on the same computer systems, effectively, and the Mounties have done that.

Secondly, I haven't heard of the evidentiary repository before. That would present some issues for me. We don't have a problem collecting evidence, and presenting it to the courts. I didn't get a chance in my comments to say that one of the biggest issues this committee could tackle is the issue of what are called non-returnable warrants. If you commit a crime in Quebec, in Montreal, and a warrant is issued for your arrest, they put a radius on the warrant of 100 kilometres or within the province of Quebec. If you come to Vancouver and get caught on another crime, you get bail. You're not held to account in different jurisdictions. We know we have the Attorney Generals' interest on this issue, both provincially and federally. I know they're talking about it for the first time in about thirty years, but I think it's one of the biggest scandals we've faced for years--that offenders can travel at will, back and forth across the country.

Regarding the statistics on plea bargaining, I don't know. I'm always very cautious about criticizing what goes on in the courtroom, because unless you're there to hear the evidentiary package presented, you don't know the decisions that are made. Inevitably, if the evidence allows you to take a plea to a lesser offence because the case might not be as strong, and there's an iffy chance of whether you might convict, then you roll the dice. Sometimes a bird in the hand is better than nothing at all. So sometimes those decisions are made. If they plea bargain away one of Larry's cases, and it's a good, solid case, I'm on the phone right away to the chief prosecutor, and I raise a big fuss. But that doesn't happen very often.

[D/Commr Pierre-Yves Bourduas]

To answer your question, madam, concerning the availability of a fund for major cases, different models have been adapted by the offices of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS. For example, in Ontario, the office has a fund, and the information provided enables office employees to prioritize cases that they have to deal with. The same principle has been adopted in Alberta, and other provinces are currently adopting it.

I should raise one point. Jamie and I sit on the organized crime committee of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which also represents all police departments. All police departments in the country have adopted a Canadian strategy against organized crime which consists in utilizing the infrastructure of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in each province.

The ultimate goal is therefore to examine the image of the province, identify tactical targets and develop strategies for inaccessible targets, to raise them at the national level and to make a presentation to the national executive. Once the executive has approved the strategy, the provinces implement it. This will enable us to clearly identify the threat level and gap that exists between what we can handle and the lack of personnel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I'm very pleased to welcome you this morning.

We in the Bloc québécois are less convinced of the necessity of mandatory minimum penalties than of providing the best possible investigation tools possible. We think that the major outcomes of cases have not been attributable to mandatory minimum sentences, but to the fact that investigation techniques have been improved.

I'm going to ask you four brief questions, and I'd appreciate precise answers. I'm putting them, of course, to Mr. Bourduas and Mr. Graham more particularly, but, if Mr. Butler or Mr. Gordon want to answer them, they are welcome to do so.

How are investigative methods for attacking street gangs, more particularly, different? We're currently reviewing the second legislative measure. On May 4, Bill C-95 will have been passed for 10 years. These laws were designed mainly in relation to the Hells Angels and criminal biker gangs. At the time, there were 38 biker gangs in Canada, which constituted a threat to the community. We've locked up a lot of the Hells Angels' leaders; there's still some work to be done, but a lot of charges have been laid. Today, street gangs are a new reality raging in our communities.

Can you provide the members of this committee with any indications concerning investigative methods? What are the tools that you don't currently have and that you need?

Second, Mr. Bourduas, you said that surveillance, infiltration and wire taps are very important methods. We've been told that wire tap warrants, which were extended by one year under Bill C-95, were not always consistent with the other types of warrants.

Do you have any very specific recommendations to make to the committee?

Third, in Canada, there are no more than roughly 10 attorneys specialized in street gangs. The reason why we win trials when people appear before the courts is that specialized attorneys agree to invest two, three or four years of their lives to become specialists.

Do you have any specific recommendations to make to the committee on that subject?

Lastly, do you believe we should amend section 467.1 to make specific reference to street gangs? Personally, I tend to think so, but our views may differ on the subject.

First, I'd like to hear Mr. Bourduas. Then I'd be pleased to hear from the Chief of the Vancouver police.

[D/Commr Pierre-Yves Bourduas]

The difference is quite well known for street gangs. I should nevertheless point out that, if we look at the criminal definition that was amended, that is to say that refers to three individuals involved in a criminal activity, it would be fair for section 467.1 to be applicable, not only in relation to the activities of the Hells Angels, but also those of street gangs, since the act gives us that flexibility.

To see that, one need only read the recent decision by Judge Bonin which was rendered in Montreal. The judge referred to this act in convicting individuals involved in street gang activities, such as weapons trafficking, drug trafficking and that type of activity. These individuals are currently being charged under this act.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Judge Bonin comments on evidence on 69 of the 74 pages. He didn't make the connection; that's what troubles me. He didn't explain why this now applies to a street gang. He comments on the evidence on 64 or 64 of the 72 pages, but he doesn't define.

You're not seeking an amendment to section 467.1?

[D/Commr Pierre-Yves Bourduas]

We're not currently seeking one for this part, since it refers to three individuals or more involved in criminal activities.

The second part is the one on mandate, which doesn't seem to be consistent. He also mentioned legislative amendments that might be required in that regard. I understand you. Subsection 185(1) of the Criminal Code makes a one-year authorization possible, but other investigation techniques apply. For example, there are what are called tracking warrants, warrants for number recorder and general warrants, and these warrants are only issued for a period of 60 days. So there's a lack of coherence between the one-year term of some of the tools that we use — in relation to developments on the case — and others whose term is limited to 60 days. It would also be important for us to be able to use these tools over a one-year period rather than be limited to 60 days.

The other important question is the notice of interception. The Criminal Code requires police officers to notify an individual who has been subject to an interception, after a period of three years, that he has indeed been the subject of an interception. We're asking that this period be extended from three to five years because some of our investigations take longer than three years.

Let's take the example of Operation Colisée. The investigation was spread over a period of four years. You'll understand that, if an individual is the subject of an investigation and we inform him of that after three years, while the investigation is still underway, that can cause certain problems.

Lastly, I'd like to mention an interesting event that occurred in Quebec. A judge set restrictions on access to a firearm in accordance with section 109 of the Criminal Code for individuals who had been convicted of drug trafficking. However, the judge stated that sections 109 and 467.1 of the Criminal Code contained no provisions enabling a judge to suspend access to a firearm for Criminal Code offences. Consequently, section 467.1 is not included in subsection 109(1) of the Criminal Code, and vice versa. In other words, there's a legislative gap.

Lastly, I believe I answered your last question on amendments in my comments.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

You did so brilliantly.

[Chief Jamie Graham]

You asked about tools.

The current federal proceeds of crime legislation doesn't work for us. I think the most offensive part of the legislation is that defence lawyers get first crack at the money. An accused person is charged with an offence. For the money we seize, the defence lawyers get access to the funds. By the time we go to trial, there's no money.

We don't seize. The only thing we seize at all now is either cash or automobiles that can be easily disposed of. If an organized crime gang owns a business or a golf course, it's not in our best interests to get involved. It's happened before. The organization lost money, and then we were sued because we didn't run the golf course properly.

In B.C. we've reverted to provincial civil forfeiture laws. We simply sue the offender, go after him, and seize the money.

The money that's seized on federal proceeds of crime does not flow back to the municipalities. It means I can put forward as much as I want to in terms of my resources to do an investigation. Once the federal proceeds of crime experts come in, the clocks are ticking, and they get paid. At the end of the day, no money flows to me.

I'd like to have additional funding. There are provisions—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

You're not using Bill C-53?

Don't you use Bill C-53? We voted on this bill, and all of the parties agreed. Don't you use that?

[Chief Jamie Graham]

It's great that the federal government uses it a lot. We very seldom use it in Vancouver.

[D/Commr Pierre-Yves Bourduas]

If at all possible, I would like to comment later on this.

[Chief Jamie Graham]

So that's why we're here; we need better laws. When we make these small recommendations for making changes to words here and there--about replica--it may not seem that crucial, but it's huge for the street-level officers. We tried to get regulations at the local level that you cannot have a replica gun or a water pistol unless it's painted orange or yellow. A water pistol that you can buy in Costco can easily be disguised as a pistol. Handguns are designed for one reason only, and that's to be concealed. The pellet guns are the same way. They should be easily distinguishable. So that's why we're here, to get these words that will help us added to specific pieces of legislation.

The federal government also, we understand, is moving in this direction. We've had discussions with the public safety minister and the Attorney General about 2,500 additional police officers being given to municipalities. We're very interested in that, and we're assured that this is being looked at. Wonderful!

There's no mechanism in law for the federal government to give money to a municipality to pay for police. There's just no mechanism for that to happen. The money has to flow to the provincial entity, then my budget goes to the province to see whether I can get positions out of them. My front-line officers are as much a part of the war on organized crime as anyone, and we would like to have the funding flow straight to the municipalities, where I can convince the federal government that it's in your best interest to help me. We think that's important.

If you're looking for tools, I'll tell you that one of the best tools we've found in Vancouver is to increase our officers' participation in school liaison programs. If you look at the provincial strategies, and Professor Gordon can talk about this, one of the great strategies to dissuade young people from making bad choices and getting involved in criminality is literacy. Who would have thought 20 years ago that cops would stand before groups and promote literacy and promote stay-in-school programs? We know that the more children who are literate and the more children who stay in school, the fewer the people who make bad choices, and we don't have to deal with them when they're 15. So every nickel that the federal government or anyone puts into literacy or school programs or education has a huge impact on law enforcement. You won't hear it too often, but it's important.

I think Larry touched on the search provisions a little bit. That's a tricky one, because I'm sure that all the lawyers will just be up in arms when we start to tinker with the search provisions. As an example, my FIT crew, my firearms interdiction team, is downtown on a Friday night. They cruise the entertainment district looking for these gangsters' vehicles, usually the big Cadillac Escalades. They spot them, they see two gangsters walking up to the car, they know they're on bail and they've got all kinds of conditions, so they search the car and find a gun. So there have to be some provisions for common sense applications so an officer doesn't have to find some grounds under the traffic act to search a car.

If you're an eight-time-convicted, indictable offender, and you're on bail, and you're out late at night, and the officer looks into your car and sees a balaclava in the back seat, boy, you have to be searched, and your vehicle should be searched. You do that now on a case, and it's out the window.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Graham.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Can you tell us about Bill C-53?

A short comment on--

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

There are other individuals who would like to ask questions.

Go ahead, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses for their testimony.

Between today's testimony and Tuesday's, we've certainly heard from an excellent panel on the impact of the war, I guess, on organized crime, and also on what we can do as legislators to help in that endeavour.

One of the things, Chief, that you had mentioned, I think, and I found it amazing, was chronic offenders and the criteria you have now for chronic offenders. I want to make sure of this. You had mentioned 12 indictable offences that they're actually arrested for.

[Chief Jamie Graham]

Yes, this isn't a direct link to organized crime, as such. These are habitual offenders we deal with, and we deal with the same usual suspects. So we started off with a smaller criterion--I think it was five arrests in a year--and the numbers were just so big. The criterion is 12 fresh arrests per year and you're on the list, and the list is at about 80.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

The reason I raise that is we are dealing in this committee with Bill C-10, and that's one of the things I think is good about Bill C-10. It targets those who are recidivist, repeat offenders.

We also heard testimony here on mandatory minimum sentences. On the first offence, there's not a whole lot that changes from the current regime. For some firearms offences now, there's a four-year mandatory minimum. Under Bill C-10 there would be a five-year mandatory minimum for some of those offences. If someone after being convicted for that offence goes out and commits another firearms-related crime, then there's an escalation of that mandatory minimum sentence. It's very much directed at what you're talking about, at people who, no matter what we do, are going to continue to commit crimes.

One of the things that was mentioned, and I'd like everyone's comment on this if possible, is when you take those chronic offenders—as you have labelled them—or recidivists off the street, that somehow there's some measurable improvement in public safety.

I know this committee travelled to Toronto and we heard from Chief Blair. He mentioned one operation they had in a neighbourhood in Toronto where, by taking the few offenders--and in every community there are only relatively few to the entire population--off the street for even a short period of time, they saw a marked, measurable improvement and a decrease in crime in that district. Can you comment on that? How important is it to take some of these chronic offenders, who no matter what you do...?

It's remarkable again, when we hear about that case, I think you said it began in 1995 or so, and finally people were sentenced in 2002, some seven or eight years later, only to be back on the street within a matter of months. Can you talk about that?

[Chief Jamie Graham]

Our chronic offender program is a popular one in Vancouver because it's non-stop action. Believe it or not, when we want to “surveil” an individual, we usually begin the surveillance at the court house, because at least we know that's where they're going to be, because they're showing for a court case. Many times it takes about five or six blocks before they either steal a bicycle or they do something. We've engaged two or three specific crown prosecutors who have the same passion we do in this, and they bring the cases forward to the courts.

To the question of whether it makes a difference to take chronic offenders off the street, it makes a huge difference, because that means that small community is safe. For our serial bank robbers, when we pick up a bank robber, we usually clear between eight and fifteen bank robberies at a time. The banks are safe and the tellers aren't traumatized. What you see on TV, where an offender will draw fifteen, twenty, or thirty years in jail, which you might see on bank robberies, it doesn't happen. There is joy in heaven when a two-year sentence is given for armed bank robbery.