Justice Committee on March 25th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

This is meeting number 11 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Wednesday, March 25, 2009.

You have before you the agenda for today. We are continuing our study on organized crime in Canada. We welcome a number of organizations and individuals as witnesses for our study.

Representing the Vancouver Board of Trade is Darcy Rezac and Dave Park. We also have the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, represented by Mike Cabana. Finally, we have the National Parole Board, represented by Jean Sutton.

I think all four of you know that we've just undertaken this study on organized crime across Canada. We're hoping that the evidence we glean from this committee will be used to prepare a report that will help us move forward in the fight against organized crime.

We're very grateful to you for appearing today. The normal process is that each organization will be given 10 minutes to present.

We'll begin with Mr. Rezac.

[Darcy Rezac, Managing Director, Vancouver Board of Trade]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Will there be questions after my presentation or after all of them?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We will have questions after all of you have presented.

[Darcy Rezac]

So there won't be questions for me immediately afterwards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

That's correct.

[Darcy Rezac]

Okay, thank you; that's helpful.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Dave Park is our economist emeritus at the Vancouver Board of Trade. He was our chief economist for many years. He has come back out of retirement to assist us with the public safety task force of the Vancouver Board of Trade.

This is a subject we've been pursuing for over 12 years. We have a problem in Canada with crime, and it's only now reaching the attention of the public with the intensity that we think it deserves, so we're delighted to appear before you.

First let me say that we're very supportive of Bill C-14. We think it should go through with all dispatch, and we encourage members of Parliament to ensure that happens as quickly as possible.

Organized crime and violent crime in Canada are related, of course, and related to our chronic offenders. In Vancouver much of our crime has to do with drugs, and of course we know that's controlled and run by organized crime. In Vancouver we are beset with the activities of chronic offenders, ranging the spectrum from beggars and thieves through to B and Es, car break-ins, violent crime and assaults, and now murder, with organized gangs using firearms. It is related in that continuum, and much of it has to do with drugs.

We've written to the Minister of Justice, we've had discussions with Statistics Canada, and the Board of Trade has put together a position. Our policy with respect to crime is a broad one. We think we have to look at root causes. For example, we are champions of early childhood development. We've got a task force with the YWCA, and we think that if we intervene between the ages of zero and six, we stand a good chance of ensuring that young people don't get involved in gangs and crime, and later, organized crime. It's part of that continuum, and we would encourage all parties to support those sorts of initiatives.

We support better treatment for addiction and mental illness for those incarcerated. We have a problem in Canada, and of course in British Columbia, in that most people are sentenced to two years less a day in provincial institutions, where those facilities simply aren't available to any extent. More treatment is available at the federal level, but more has to be done as well.

We're a business association with 6,000 members whose purpose is to ensure that Vancouver in Canada is the best place in the world to live, work, play, invest, and visit. That reputation is threatened because of the problem we have with crime.

There are 2.7 million Canadians who are victims of violent crime every year. That's according to the last Statistics Canada victimization survey. It's a bit dated now. A new one being undertaken as we speak will provide a much better measure of the actual levels of crime in our country, much better than what we see annually from Statistics Canada, which are crimes reported to police. We've been pressing Statistics Canada for well over 10 years to change the method of reporting crime to give a more accurate reflection of the actual levels of crime.

The current measure, crimes reported to police, only captures one-third of all crimes. The victim survey shows that 34% of crimes are reported to police and two-thirds aren't. For example, 88% of sexual assaults are not reported to police at all. We think that's a very bad proxy for crime rates.

In fact, until recently, Statistics Canada defined the national crime rate as crimes reported to police. We got their attention when we wrote an editorial that ended up in the Vancouver Sun and the National Post. It was in response to a headline that said, “Crime rate down based upon crimes reported to police”. We said we hoped that was true, but we won't know if it is until the 2009 victim survey is conducted. After a similar statement was made in 2005 that the crime rate had gone down based upon police-reported crimes, the 2004 victim survey showed that in fact the crime rate had not gone down at all, except in one category, B and E; all the other eight categories had either stayed the same or had gone up.

That provoked a response from Statistics Canada, and we entered into a dialogue with them. Up until that time we had just had an exchange of letters and we weren't making much progress.

We were very pleased with our meeting yesterday with Dr. Sheikh, the Chief Statistician of Canada. We were advised that they're backing away from the traditional definition of crime rates and they will refer to police-reported crimes. It's a valuable study on its own, as long as you know what it is. They will be referring to crimes reported to police.

They will also take pains to point out to readers that there's another study on victims, which gives you a different measure of the crime rate if you use that as a definition. They surveyed eight major categories. They did it as they do the census, with a scientifically tested study of 20,000 Canadians. We don't think that's enough. We asked them to expand on that as well.

They were asked what their recent experiences were. In The Globe and Mail today, a member of Parliament responded that he didn't think it was useful to use crime measures based on perception. Ladies and gentlemen, these are the perceptions of your constituents who have recently had an experience with crime. It's a far better measure than crimes reported to police, which take out of the equation any opportunity to ask probing questions. It's a scientific survey. It has its weaknesses. It doesn't cover all crimes, such as white-collar crimes. But it covers most of the crime in the country, certainly the kinds of violent crimes that your constituents are concerned with and our members are concerned with.

We've asked them to do it annually. We've asked them to expand the survey so that it includes the CMAs, the census metropolitan areas, so that major cities such as Vancouver can actually gauge the situation with crime. Is it getting better? Is it getting worse? Our public policy response can then be more appropriate than in the past, when it was based on crimes reported to police. We were pleased with that. They're all set and ready to go.

I suggested to Dr. Sheikh that it would be a wonderful stimulus measure for the government to announce annual funding for the report. His response was that Stats Canada is shovel-ready. I would like to encourage all parties to put aside your differences and to encourage the government to fund the study. As it's under way for 2009, it would start in 2010 and every year thereafter.

I should as well point out that Dr. Sheikh informed us that all the other OECD countries, or industrialized countries, as he expressed it, either do the reports annually or bi-annually. They do it more frequently than we do. We have not been holding our own with respect to asking our members who are victims and your constituents and citizens what their recent experiences with crime have been.

I want to leave you with one graph. We have a presentation before you that covers our position. On October 7, 1971, the Minister of Justice rose in the House and said that from now on the government is going to focus on “the rehabilitation of individuals rather than protecting” the public. He did not say “as well as” or “in addition to”. He said “rather than protecting” the public.

Ladies and gentlemen, that's what we've been doing for almost 40 years. It's been a very good policy. It's been a wonderful policy for criminals. It's been a very bad policy for victims. At the Vancouver Board of Trade, our view is that we should give victims a chance.

What's happening in Vancouver? This is from a Vancouver police report that was done last year on 379 chronic offenders. These are people who have had multiple convictions, some were minor and some were major, but they're chronic offenders. An average sentence for the first offence is 101 days. The average sentence for the 35th offence is 25 days. This makes no sense to us. In recent polls that were published, our members tell us this is far different from the public expectation of justice that is being administered.

Our plea to the committee and to members of Parliament is to please put aside political differences and personal differences. We certainly have a crisis in our country with organized crime on the west coast and with violent crime and chronic crime. If we do the correct surveys and test those levels of crime properly, you will see that it's unacceptable for 650,000 Canadians to be injured during the commission of violent crimes every year, for there to be 2.7 million violent crimes in the country every year, and for one Canadian in four to be the victim of a crime in the past year.

We don't think it's acceptable and we hope you don't either.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Mr. Rezac.

We'll move on to Mr. Cabana, representing the Organized Crime Committee. He's also the assistant commissioner for federal and international operations for the RCMP.

Mr. Cabana, the floor is yours.

[C/Supt Mike Cabana, Co-Chair, Organized Crime Committee and Assistant Commissioner, Federal and International Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The organized crime committee seeks to enhance cooperation among law enforcement agencies at home and abroad, promote innovative law enforcement initiatives, and advocate for public policy and legislative change. On behalf of the Canadian law enforcement community, I thank you for providing us with this opportunity today.

This committee has invited me to discuss the current threat of organized crime in Canada and to identify challenges within the law enforcement community for its eradication.

As was reported to you last week, the law enforcement community has identified more than 900 organized crime groups operating in large cities and small towns in Canada. This is a substantial and growing problem. Today I hope to provide you with further information on the issue to allow for a deeper understanding of the challenges, what law enforcement has been doing to address the situation, and the legislative gaps that require our mutual attention.

Organized crime has significantly changed over the last five years in Canada.

While the drug trade remains a focal point of their activities, they have continued to become more sophisticated and diversified in their criminal activities.

Most are involved in more than one type of criminal activity which can range from drug crimes or financial crimes, such as identity theft, mass-market fraud and money laundering, to crimes such as human smuggling, human trafficking, and counterfeiting consumer products and medications.

While there are many factors at play in the acceleration of organized crime activity in Canada, the end result is that today Canada has been identified as a source country for synthetic drugs and a transit country for cocaine en route from North America to Asia. More worrying, and presenting an immediate threat to public safety, organized crime groups have escalated their use of violence in fighting for territory and shares in what have become very lucrative illicit markets. These groups have also come to rely on the corruption of public officials and using violence towards their rivals, potential witnesses, law enforcement, and the judiciary.

Many organizations have become more sophisticated in that they compartmentalize their operations and expand over a number of countries. They are relying on modern technology to communicate and to further insulate themselves from the reach of the law.

While there are many challenges, we have many examples of successful investigations through joint forces operations. These include the biker enforcement units, the Integrated Gang Task Force, and the combined forces special enforcement units, which are composed of law enforcement agencies from all levels, working on integrated investigations to address priority targets.

Inter-agency coordination is further enhanced by groups such as the national coordinating committee on organized crime, the CACP's organized crime committee, which I am here representing, and the CACP's law amendment committee.

A relatively new group that is showing great promise is the Canadian Integrated Response to Organized Crime, or CI-ROC, which was until very recently called or referred to as the Council on Public Safety. CI-ROC was created to enhance operational cooperation between law enforcement agencies across provincial borders with regard to organized crime operations. Coordination of these efforts is necessary to ensure that the use of limited resources and assets are maximized and that emerging threats are identified and addressed to preclude further growth of organized crime. While it is still relatively young, the potential impact of such a body is tremendous.

There are many successes and advances, but given the new realities I mentioned, Canadian law enforcement is challenged in their ability to investigate. As with most complex issues, a multifaceted approach is required. Ongoing, timely, intelligence-sharing facilitates effective and proactive program delivery and provides guidance in effective deployment of resources to tactical operations.

Enhancements to legislation must be explored along with the scrutiny of current judicial processes and outcomes to ensure an effective response to enforcement action. In the face of the challenges posed by organized crime, it is the CACP's position that law enforcement agencies must be given the power and the tools to keep pace.

There are three specific areas I would like to address. The first is the impact current disclosure requirements are having on criminal investigations. In a 1991 case, Regina v. Stinchcombe, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered prosecutors to disclose to the defendant before the trial all relevant information. “Relevant disclosure” is defined as the reasonable possibility that information could be used to meet the crown's case, advance a defence, or make a decision that could affect the conduct of the defence. Disclosure in Canada has become a significant exercise in criminal cases, and issues pertaining to relevant disclosures surface in most major cases today. This can have a significant impact on the cost and progress of investigations and prosecutions.

Courts, crown counsel, defence counsel and police officers across the country have varying interpretations of what “relevant disclosure“ is. Within our judicial system, the concept of relevant has been interpreted to the point where the threshold test for relevant disclosure is extremely low. As the investigation of criminal organizations has become complex, the management for purposes of disclosure has become more and more of a challenge. Consequently, this affects our capacity to investigate other criminal organizations.

A quick example of how expanding disclosure can affect an investigation. A few years ago, during a police investigation in Canada targeting a major organized crime group, 1.7 million pieces of communication were intercepted. Of those, 27,000 were transcribed. In the end, only 200 were deemed sufficiently relevant to the case to be used in court.

Investigations can produce an extraordinary amount of documentation. Significant policing resources are allotted to this duty, effectively removing them from front-line policing.

Further, the reality of the volume of disclosure has affected the capacity of law enforcement and prosecutors to attack organized crime as an offence in and of itself. In many instances, prosecution for substantive offences is preferred over organized crime charges. The legal framework and practices must evolve and embrace the efficiencies that can be provided by new techniques and methods such as those provided by electronic technology. Most importantly, there is a need to establish a well-defined and consistent threshold for relevant disclosure. This could be accomplished through enacting disclosure requirements and procedures.

The second area where we need to progress is the area of lawful access. While communications technology has evolved considerably and criminals are embracing and taking advantage of it, Canadian law has not kept pace with the rapid changes. Increasingly, complex technologies are challenging conventional lawful access methods. Communication carriers are not required to provide access technology. Law enforcement agencies are simply asking that telecommunication carriers build interception capability into existing or new networks and provide access to important customer name and address information.

The third and final issue I would like to address is the need for an increased ability to share information between government agencies, domestically and internationally, to eliminate havens where criminal organizations can flourish. The current environment is one of fear of sharing information, due to either legislative restrictions or human rights concerns. While it is essential to be careful in determining the appropriate information to share and the context within which it is shared or used, this can seriously impede the ability of law enforcement to investigate organized crime.

Organized crime operates from an international perspective. In fact, it can be demonstrated that organized crime is taking advantage of the infrastructure and legislation of certain countries. They are organizing to better insulate themselves. As an example, some criminal organizations have based themselves in India and China to forward precursor chemicals. Other organizations have sought refuge in Caribbean countries, while others are now infiltrating countries of the African continent to use as transshipment points.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, Canadian law enforcement is committed to tackling organized crime, and we need new thinking in the judicial process and new policies and guidelines to support these efforts.

On behalf of the CACP's organized crime committee, I am confident we can respond to the growing sophistication of criminality and together we can strike the right balance in our legal and legislative structures.

I also wish to compliment this committee on your plans to travel in the near future to several Canadian cities to discuss issues surrounding organized crime. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police strongly supports this initiative, which will allow the committee to get first-hand information from those who are on the front lines in dealing with organized crime. CACP is prepared to fully support the committee in this important work, and we will work closely with the clerk of the committee to facilitate these consultations.

I would again like to thank you for inviting me here today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have at the conclusion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Mr. Cabana. I also thank you for staying within your allotted 10 minutes; it is much appreciated.

We will now move on to Jean Sutton, who is representing the National Parole Board as director of professional standards and decision processes.

The floor is yours.

[Jean Sutton, Director, Professional Standards and Decision Processes, National Parole Board]

Thank you.

First I would like to thank you for the invitation to come and speak at the committee.

As the director of professional standards and decision processes at the National Parole Board, I bring to this committee over 25 years of experience with the board, principally in the area of training and development for our board members.

I really do not have a formal opening statement today for the committee. I just wanted to reinforce the years of experience I bring, so I am open to answer any questions that may be relevant to assist you in your endeavours.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I am sorry, but I believe there has been a misunderstanding. When a government agency is invited to come and speak to us about organized crime, we expect to get some information. I expected that the National Parole Board would provide us with information. I am asking the witness to come back and see us again.

For example, I was told that a plan had been put together for street gangs in Canadian prisons. You cannot appear here and simply state that you have experience. I am not at all pleased. This is not a serious way of doing things and, ultimately, it is disrespectful to the members of the committee. I believe that the clerk must re-invite this person, and that she should provide us with information on what is going on in the prisons. This is not a job competition nor a time to present one's resumé.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, perhaps we could leave that until the end of the meeting. She may be able to answer some questions that some of our committee members find pressing. She may be able to give us helpful information, so I wouldn't want to prejudge the testimony she may give as questions are asked.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chair, it is not a question of judging. The point is that we invite witnesses and then they do not provide us with any information. The clerk must call representatives from the National Parole Board once again and they should provide us with a presentation on what is happening in our prisons. That is why they were invited. I am not questioning the experience of the witness, but we need this information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Monsieur Ménard, I do understand your point. However, I believe the witness was told there's a 10-minute presentation period. She had an opportunity to do that. She has chosen not to. I don't want to dismiss the witness at this point. I think she should remain to answer some questions from members of the committee, and then we can judge later on whether we want her to come back.

Mr. Dosanjh, you've got a point?

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I am in full support of my colleague's position, not to ask the witness to leave, but I just want to put on the record that I believe it's not appropriate for a witness, when asked to make a presentation, to simply come and not make a presentation, particularly if you happen to be from the public service. I think this is very important. I do believe she should be staying and colleagues may have questions, but I want to put myself on the record in support of the sentiment expressed by my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Just so you know, the clerk has advised me that the witnesses didn't have a lot of advance notice. They were given notice late last week, so I don't know if that's the reason there is no presentation, but I'm certainly going to let Ms. Sutton stay, and we may have some questions specifically for her.

We'll move to questions, and I think we'll revert to our normal rotation, which is seven minutes for each of the parties on the first go-round.

Mr. Dosanjh, you have seven minutes.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you very much. I want to first welcome all of you with equal vigour, but particularly my friends from British Columbia, Mr. Rezac and Mr. Park.

Mr. Rezac, I noticed you didn't stress the issue of chronic offenders as much today as you did when you appeared before the B.C. caucus about a week ago. I want to ask you a question about the chronic offenders. I agree it is a serious problem, at least in British Columbia because we know the scene. It may be a problem in other urban centres.

When you are asking for escalation of sentences, are you asking for mandatory minimums past two years so they can go to the federal prisons and get treatment, or are you simply asking for some escalation of sentences but then obligating the provinces to provide treatment in the corrections facilities so it's not an exercise in uploading? If the provinces need funding, then the federal government should perhaps support them in funding.

[Darcy Rezac]

Thank you for the question.

Mr. Chairman, when I show this graph, that's the issue on chronic offenders, so if I didn't emphasize that sufficiently, I apologize. The main purpose of our mission is to highlight the issue of chronic offenders, and we're asking for escalating sentences.

We don't have the exact prescription for how you do that. Minimum sentences and so on would be up to folks in Parliament to debate and come up with something that's going to work, based on experience. We'll be happy to look at that, but what we're saying is that if somebody appears before a judge and they have 30 convictions and they're appearing again on similar or even other convictions that might be more serious, or violent convictions, there should be a requirement for those sentences to escalate and a reverse onus put on the criminal to demonstrate why they should not get a higher sentence.

Judges in British Columbia tell us it doesn't do any good. Going back to this 1971 policy, it doesn't do any good to put people in prison because they still come out as thieves and criminals and they assault people, they continue to do that, and it's usually based on having a problem with drugs or a mental illness. Therefore, it's a medical problem, and they refuse to treat it as a legal problem.

The only problem is that a whole bunch of victims are going to be created as a result of that decision. There seems to be a disconnect in terms of accountability between that decision and what's going to happen next, and our members and their families are getting pretty upset with that.

Perhaps Dave could answer with a little bit more detail on how we might do this.

[Dave Park, Assistant Managing Director and Chief Economist, Vancouver Board of Trade]

I think you touched upon it. There's no point in just repeating something and expecting a different result.

Yes, by all means there needs to be some way of restricting these people's activities so that society is not as afflicted by their activities, but there's no point in doing that unless you also have the means of treatment or some way of modifying their behaviour and their capabilities. If they are drug addicts and they are turned right back onto the street, they'll just start to steal again.

We have to have some means of intervening. I don't think we want to be prescriptive as to what exactly that should be, but it's quite clear that there needs to be a different approach to chronic offenders. It probably will require their being incarcerated longer, or at least detained in treatment longer in some way, but we're not attempting to be experts to prescribe what that might be.

[Darcy Rezac]

We're aware of some successful measures in Italy and other parts of the world that we can learn from.

In terms of download, we think that with the situation on the west coast—and it has happened in Quebec with gangs and violent offences—emergency funding is required. I think we should treat this like a tsunami, a forest fire, a hurricane, the Winnipeg flood—whatever it is. Let's do what we have to do to fix this thing.

By all means, let's fix it from the top down: let's get the bad guys who are the organized criminals and so on. But we have to attack it from both ends. This is going to call for policies that the present government may not have very much supported in the past, such as early childhood development, education, and literacy in prisons. All of these measures work; there's good evidence for that. But it's not just one measure; we have to do everything. We have to do what we can do first, and do it quickly. That's why we're delighted with the announcement that I heard today that we're going to attack the two-for-one issue. We're fully supportive of that.

Again, please put aside your differences. Let's get this stuff in place to help the police get evidence before judges, give people due process, get the bad guys put away or into treatment, and let the rest of us get on with our lives without being harassed by criminals—B and E artists—and being assaulted.

In Vancouver we have had a situation in which somebody, you'll recall, went into a hospital room and stole a ring from the hand of a 92-year-old woman and then got a minimum sentence for doing it. That's a horrific crime, and the impact was not only upon that woman but upon her whole family and on the sense of safety and security in a hospital. Give us a break; we need a sea change here.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I have another question for you. It's on the new methodology for the study of statistics, in which you're proposing it be done every year rather than every five years. I know that my colleague, Mr. Comartin, is quoted as having expressed some concerns.

I asked you this privately, but I'm going to ask you on the record. We would get Statistics Canada to come here and talk about this to perhaps educate us better, but my concern would be with defining who the victim is in the situation. For instance, when you do tort law, there is an argument for the “thin-skull” victim. I may be a weak individual, and if some ten-places-removed relative is hurt in a crime, I may feel victimized. I want to know what you mean by victim. Is it by just your feeling that you're a victim or by your being an actual victim that we would do the study?

[Dave Park]

Perhaps I can answer that question.

It's our understanding, from discussions with Statistics Canada and from looking at similar survey results, from other countries such as the United States and in the UN survey, that in fact they ask “Have you experienced a crime?” I'm not sure exactly how they put the question, but they are the experts.

I would strongly suggest that it might be very useful to have Statistics Canada explain how they do this. They are the experts. As you know, they conduct huge numbers of surveys. I'm sure they have taken the time and have gathered the best approaches from around the world to stage this particular type of survey, just as they do with other surveys.

[Darcy Rezac]

I should point out that this is not a new survey. This has been done for dozens of years. It's done in all the OECD countries, so there's some commonality. All the surveys aren't exactly the same because of different legislation and so on, but they do comparative studies, the UN does comparisons, and there's nothing new here.

They do probe those questions. It's not simply an opinion that's done by some paid researcher. It's a professional survey that's done. They test for those inaccuracies and put in place controlled measures for them. While there are shortcomings and it's not perfect, our view is that it's a better measure of actual levels of crime than crimes reported to police.

I agree with Dave. I would encourage you to have the chief statistician and his expert who has been running this survey for years and years come before you to testify, if for no other reason than that it's under way right now. You want to make sure that the data that's published is the best it can be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Monsieur Ménard.