Justice Committee on Feb. 16th, 2012

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I want to thank you, all of you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

We'll stand down for a few minutes while we bring in our other panel.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We'll call the meeting back to order. We're a little late on our start time.

We have some witnesses before us to try to update the study on organized crime. We have with us Michel Aubin, from Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, and Ken Lamontagne and Eric Slinn, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

If any of you have an opening statement you wish to make, we'd be very happy to hear from you.

Go ahead.

[Chief Superintendent Michel Aubin, Director General, Criminal Intelligence Service Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, my name is Michel Aubin. I am the director general of Criminal Intelligence Service Canada's central bureau.

The committee has asked me here today to provide an update on four items. The first relates to the total number of reported organized crime groups in Canada. Second, I was asked to address the number of organized crime groups based on their levels of threat. Third, you requested information on the types of criminal activities pursued by organized crime and which ones are the most prevalent. Lastly, I was asked to provide an update on the efforts to replace or upgrade the automated criminal intelligence information system, which is known as ACIIS.

Prior to providing these answers, I think it's important for me to first briefly comment on how CISC collects information and produces its criminal intelligence assessments. The intention is to provide you, the committee members, with the necessary context in appreciating the integrity of the information and also in some measure understanding related limitations.

Criminal Intelligence Service Canada has 10 provincial bureaus. Each one has intrinsic working relationships with local policing agencies and other important members of the law enforcement community. Provincial bureaus are responsible for collecting and analyzing information on serious and organized crime in their areas and for developing provincial intelligence assessments accordingly.

When these reports are developed, they are used to promote an intelligence-led policing model at the provincial level. Additionally, the provincial assessments are then submitted to the central bureau so that our strategic analysts and intelligence officers can provide a national overview of the strategic direction and scope of organized and serious crime in Canada.

The machinery behind all of this, and the primary tool that allows law enforcement to collect and share information on a common platform, is the automated criminal intelligence information system, or ACIIS. The system links information on organized and serious crime across Canada and is a fundamental resource in our efforts to combat the multi-jurisdictional nature of illicit activity in our communities. ACIIS is integral to our threat assessment reporting process and is a critical means of sharing information between member agencies.

I have an update on a number of reported organized crime groups in Canada. The total number has steadily fluctuated between approximately 700 and 900 within the past five years. The fluctuation is largely reflective of problems with information sharing on ACIIS. Since 2005, the concept of organized crime within law enforcement across Canada has broadened to include not only tightly knit groups, but also more loosely associated, ethnically diverse, and integrated criminal networks.

On the second point, you requested statistics on the number of organized crime groups based on their level of threat. I'm going to do my best to answer this; however, it is important for me to ensure the integrity of operations and to respect the third party rule in the collection of information from our member agencies. While I'm unable to offer specific numbers, I am able to provide percentages and to offer some important insight into high-level threat groups.

Three per cent of organized crime groups represent the highest national threat. They involve groups with an international, interprovincial, or cross-jurisdictional scope and who enjoy an important share of certain organized crime business lines. The majority of these groups are based in Canada's three criminal hubs: British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec.

Ninety-seven per cent of organized crime groups fall within a national threat category that is representative of provincial or more localized threats in scope.

All groups, whether national, provincial, or local, represent significant threats to public safety. Organized crime is a network and distributed problem that needs to be addressed through a network and cross-jurisdictional response. Currently, ACIIS is the dedicated national repository in achieving this network approach.

The committee also requested information on the types of criminal activities pursued by organized crime and which ones are the most prevalent. CISC has divided the criminal marketplace into three business lines: illicit drugs, other illicit goods and services, and financial crimes.

As in previous years, illicit drugs continue to dominate. They account for 57% of the criminal marketplace activities share. Cocaine, cannabis, and synthetic drugs, such as ketamine, are dominant within this business line. In particular, we are seeing a moderate expansion with respect to ketamine, pharmaceutical opiates such as OxyContin, and heroin trafficking outside of the traditional criminal hubs.

In 2011 we reported that financial crime accounted for approximately 11% of the criminal marketplace activity. Payment card fraud continues to represent by far the most prevalent market, and continues to expand. Other illicit goods and services account for the remaining 32%. Theft, contraband such as alcohol and tobacco, and the sex trade are the most significant markets of organized crime.

As far as an update on ACIIS, this system was built in 1976. It was initially intended for 50 users across Canada. Today we have well over 3,000 users located in 1,400 different sites across Canada using the database. In addition to obvious capacity issues, intelligence and operational communities are unable to take advantage of the significant technological innovation that is currently available.

In the absence of a replacement for ACIIS, some police agencies and provinces are currently considering an alternative system in a localized environment. Crime is not confined by geography, so it is imperative for all law enforcement to be able to continue to share and access real-time information across jurisdictions and provincial boundaries to a national repository. There is a need to replace ACIIS. How this could be addressed needs to be considered under the new government framework for national police services.

The reality of policing in 2012 is one of increasing complexity and constant change. The value of information and intelligence today arises from how fast law enforcement can gather, understand, and move information.

Innovation in technology and globalization have enabled organized crime to flourish across municipal, provincial, and national borders. Crime groups are uninhibited by jurisdictions and victimize Canadians in very profound ways. Although drug trafficking remains a primary activity among organized crime, many have expanded their scope and have become involved in more than one type of criminal activity. They're also becoming more sophisticated and diversified, as I'm sure you've heard during your study.

In closing, CISC and its member agencies are working hard to share information to promote an integrated, intelligence-led policing model in Canada. We have recently formalized a working relationship with our counterparts in operational units. It's actually a national strategy. By having the intelligence and operation units working in tandem, we are well positioned to exchange information and mitigate the negative impact that organized crime groups have on our communities. However, it is critical for law enforcement to have the technological solutions that will allow them to further enhance public safety.

I would like to thank you again for inviting us to appear today. We will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you very much.

[Superintendent Eric Slinn, Director, Drug Branch, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Mr. Chair, if you so desire, everybody has the speech. I can forego the speech and get right to your questions, if that's more beneficial for this group. I'm willing to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Go ahead and give it. Mr. Harris can't read it as fast as you can say it.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

We can read it, but we can't ask questions while we're reading it.

[Supt Eric Slinn]

Okay, that's fair.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

We usually hear a presentation.

[Supt Eric Slinn]

Do you want me to read the speech then?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Yes, please.

[Supt Eric Slinn]

Very good.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee. Thank you for inviting us here today.

My name is Eric Slinn and I am the director of the Drug and Organized Crime Branches. I am accompanied by Inspector Greg Bowen, the OIC of the witness protection program at NHQ.

Witness protection is recognized internationally as an essential tool in effectively investigating and prosecuting those involved in organized crime and terrorism. Simply put, it is unlikely that persons would agree to put themselves at risk through testifying in court or collaborating with law enforcement in the absence of a mechanism designed to provide them protection.

The Witness Protection Program Act identifies the Commissioner of the RCMP as the administrator of the federal witness protection program. This program is mandated to provide witness protection services to all Canadian law enforcement and, under certain circumstances, to enter into protection agreements with foreign governments and our international criminal courts or tribunals with the concurrence of both the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

As Chief Superintendent Thomas Bucher previously testified before this committee on April 13, 2010, it is important to note that the federal witness protection program is not the only program in Canada. The provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan all have their own provincial programs. The three prairie provinces currently have legislated programs. Ontario and Quebec have policy-based programs. Most urban and provincial policing agencies have witness protection units within their respective organizations.

Having independent programs does not preclude these agencies from utilizing the federal program. If, for example, a particularly challenging case arises, the RCMP may be called upon for assistance and the witness will be given consideration for entry into the federal program. These situations occasionally arise because the provincial or municipal programs were generally created to meet the short-term needs of the witness and are not necessarily designed to accommodate those requiring lifelong protection or change of identity.

I would also add that there is no dedicated federal funding for witness protection in Canada. This includes the federal witness protection program administered by the RCMP. This situation therefore creates challenges for the federal program and for smaller agencies who are investigating serious crimes but do not have sufficient resources to pay for witness protection.

Currently, the RCMP expends between $8 million and $9 million per year on witness protection; however, this number can easily fluctuate, depending upon the number and complexity of the case is presented.

The challenges associated with providing an effective witness protection service are considerable. Criminal organizations have an ever-increasing capacity and networks to locate and intimidate and/or harm witnesses and as a result, witness protection processes continually evolve.

Post 9/11, the expanded use of biometrics and technology has posed additional challenges to witness protection partners.

The Standing House Committee on Public Safety and National Security report on witness protection in 2008, as well as the subsequent 2010 report from the Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182, made a number of recommendations intended to improve the federal witness protection program.

These recommendations were all taken into consideration as the RCMP, in concert with representatives of Public Safety, initiated in-depth consultations into the administration of the federal witness protection program with a breadth of partners and other stakeholders at both the federal and provincial levels.

Although the program was generally well supported, these consultations identified a number of areas where program improvements could be made. These areas of change, in concert with changes already contemplated by the RCMP, became the focus of an internal RCMP document, which contained a series of recommendations designed to improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the federal witness protection program.

Efforts are currently being undertaken to address two areas of concern. Consideration is being given to amending the Witness Protection Program Act. These proposed amendments are intended to respond to shortcomings identified by provincial partners, with an overall view of making the federal legislation more relevant to provincial needs.

In addition, the RCMP is implementing a number of program changes, with a view to significantly enhance the delivery of the witness protection services. The focus of the planned changes is to ensure that the federal program would become more protectee-focused, provide an enhanced level of security to the public, greater accountability, and introduce a series of other program changes, which will result in a vastly superior program to what currently exists.

I would like to take a moment to briefly discuss a number of the program changes currently being introduced into the federal program. The RCMP is finalizing the development of a risk assessment and management model that will be unique to witness protection. This risk assessment and management model will be applied in all cases where an individual and/or their dependants are considered for inclusion into the program. The model will ensure that all considerations about who may be entered into the federal witness protection program will be based upon a consistent national standard, which will be applied in all cases, prior to anyone being entered into the program.

Further, this process will incorporate the input of specially trained psychologists, who will play a critical role in ensuring that the protectees' needs are addressed and that potential risks to both protectees and the public are identified and addressed at a very early stage.

Witness protection training has been increased substantially. Greater training emphasis is being placed on the identification of the socio-psychological needs of protectees, and this training will be augmented by mandatory annual upgrades and tactical training specific to the witness protection function.

The federal program will also benefit from an expanded use of technology currently being developed and designed to afford witness protection coordinators an enhanced capability to monitor witness protection cases, identify outstanding issues and provide greater levels of accountability and more accurate reporting.

The referred changes will ensure that the FWPP will remain a contemporary and world leading witness protection service meeting the needs of both the Canadian public and the Canadian justice system.

These changes are consistent with those previously discussed by RCMP Chief Superintendent Thomas Bucher and Inspector Greg Bowen when they last appeared before the committee and responded to committee questions about witness protection.

At that time, the RCMP agreed to provide a copy of the planned changes to the federal witness protection program to the committee. The document referred to was provided to Public Safety Canada and to this committee. Your executive service should be able to confirm this. If not, I will confirm this.

At this time, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you very much.

We will begin questions with Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you. Let me start with the RCMP, with Superintendent Slinn.

If your report had been distributed beforehand, we might have had a chance to read it. You can't ask questions without reading it.

Concerning your last comment, about the report, are you saying that a report was prepared and sent to this committee? One of the reasons you are here is that we were looking for that report. I haven't seen it, but maybe we do have it. You said you were going to develop a document to make the protection program more protectee-focused. We were going to ask about that.

Robin, do we have it?

The committee doesn't seem to have it for the writing of our own report. We would like to have a copy of it, if you could forward it to us.

Turning to the question of funding for the federal witness protection program and the number of participants, how many people are involved in it now on a national basis?

[Supt Eric Slinn]

First of all, we forwarded the report in August 2010 to Public Safety Canada. I offer my apologies that you don't have it. I was here fully anticipating that you have read the report and that the questions would be based on it. It's most unfortunate. We will ensure that you get it in the coming days.

With respect to how many people are in the federal witness protection program, as of right now there are 830 people in the program.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

You referred to the recommendations, and of course I'm assuming that the report, which we haven't seen, addresses—it was nine recommendations in the public safety committee—some of those, one being to suggest that an independent agency work within the Department of Justice on this so that it wouldn't be related to your police force and it would be able to coordinate the provincial thing better.

Is that addressed? What is the view on that, Chief Superintendent?

[Supt Eric Slinn]

Yes, that is addressed in the report.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

We'll wait for the report then.

I refer to Mr. Aubin.

I listened carefully to your comments, sir, and frankly didn't find them very specific. There were a lot of generalities there. In fact, during the last testimony before this committee, there were details as to how many fit into category 1, category 2, category 3, and category 4. You have just talked about the 3% representing the highest national threat, which I'm assuming would be category 1.

Is that the case? Category 1 seems to be designed as those providing the strongest threat and being international in scope, and in that there were 16 organizations. Category 2 was with international and interprovincial scope, but there was no reference as to the degree of threat, and you identified 300 groups at that level. Category 3 was confined to a single province of more than one city; there were 100 there. Category 4 was basically a single area, town, or city—I guess we're talking about street gangs or small operations.

The fluctuation seems rather large from one year to the next, and he was talking about information sharing being up in the air. This is a little bothersome, frankly. You have 10 separate agencies collecting this information. Can they not get it right? They are off by a factor of 150 out of 900. That seems a bit odd.

And where is the fluctuation? Is it in the number of individual local organizations? I'm sure the Hells Angels don't come on and off the list; the major threats wouldn't come on and off the list.

Is there a fluctuation in activity at the local level, or are we talking about individual small groups of drug dealers being picked up and thrown in jail, and therefore they disappear? What are we talking about here?

[C/Supt Michel Aubin]

Thank you, Mr. Harris. I'm going to try to do my best to answer with as much clarity as possible.

You've touched on a couple of topics. First of all, if I may, I'll premise it by saying that the collection process—how we arrive at the last number on a yearly basis—is done from the law enforcement agency basis up to provincial bureaus and into central bureau. So it is in fact a national collection process.

The collection process, from a theoretical perspective, should happen through the ACIIS database. The database itself presents so many challenges that not everybody uses it and hence provincial bureaus and even central bureau have to use separate collection plans to try to get the full number.

This process is called the integrated spread assessment process and it was put in place in 2003. In fact, I'd say it came about that we had all 10 provinces participating around 2007. It took a number of years to get everybody on board and working on it. Since 2005, across Canada everybody has been working with the same definition of organized crime. It's the definition that's provided in the Criminal Code.

What we're seeing through the variance, the fluctuations, is that in fact it is due to a number of factors. On one hand it is the use of ACIIS itself, but it's the agencies being able to respect the timelines at the provincial level and national level. If a province is late in submissions, it may affect the number.

As well, as an example, last year with the G-8 and the G-20 in Ontario, it seriously affected the provincial bureau of Ontario being able to provide a full collection process and provide the full numbers or the full situation of organized crime in their province.

This past year, Alberta has been looking at their whole process. This year, and going into 2012, we're anticipating having submissions from all provinces.

The fluctuations can also be due to.... You're correct, some organizations such as the Hells Angels are there constantly. But other organizations may be brought to our attention and we might go a couple of years without getting some intelligence on them. Sometimes what happens is that some of the bureaus will drop those organizations from their listing, or they'll cap their listing of organizations in the province.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Could I just interrupt with a question?

Is the definition of organized crime itself a problem here? Organized crime, in the definition in the Criminal Code, would take you and me and Superintendent Slinn doing some criminal act together on a more than one event basis. That would be for the purpose of prosecution under the Criminal Code, but we may not be a threat in any real sense. We may not be a serious threat in the sense of guns and a high level of violent criminal activity, yet we would be considered to be organized crime.

How do we use that term “organized crime” to determine the threat? I get it when we're talking about the international organizations with violent aims, etc. But how is that useful on the local city level, if it's a definition in the Criminal Code but not really something about threat levels? That's what I'm interested in and what I think the public is interested in, about threat, and not whether two or three people are committing a crime together in a sort of aiding and abetting sense, because there may not be an organization.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Just a short definition. We're quite a way over.