Justice Committee on Jan. 30th, 2007

[Sgt Guy Ouellette]

Here are some facts. In Canada, there's a founding member of the Hells Angels named Robert Bonomo. He's a computer scientist and enters in computers all the disclosures of evidence of all draft police investigations across Canada concerning the Hells Angels. He puts all that at the disposal of lawyers in Canada, whoever they may be. If I'm going to testify in a case in Alberta, the lawyer in that province comes and stays in Quebec. He then prepares it for the cross-examination that I'm going to do in Alberta. We're far from that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. Freeman and Monsieur Ouellette.

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Good morning and thank your for being here this morning.

I'll be very brief in view of the allotted time. First, I'd like to make a brief comment. My question is mainly for Mr. Delva, who has drawn my attention more particularly.

You very much struck me when you said that a lot of five- or six-year-old children were at the school of crime and that a number of people had spoken to the teachers but that the latter didn't dare intervene outside the school yard. In Quebec, we talk to teachers through the CEQ or another union.

You raised another point, which is not entirely under our jurisdiction. You said that youths watch programs or listen to songs by 50 Cent, which is a violent group. On that group's site, there is a picture of a revolver, which I've never seen. That's what's called media treatment. We're dealing with youths from the media generation.

You also referred to another field. One public television network recently presented a Haitian group whose members had big houses in Haiti because they were selling drugs in Montreal. A youth who looks at that kind of program sees that his racial brother has big houses in Haiti and a little apartment in Montreal North. Our media create envy in that youth, who says to himself that that's what he wants to become.

So the media play a very important role in the phenomenon we're concerned with today. We're all good people. We all have an interest in protecting the victim, in seeing that criminals are punished fairly and without discrimination, and so on. But the media try to get such a powerful new story that youths of six, seven or eight years are virtually blinded. They want to become what the media transmits to them, either through a song or a Hollywood film. Earlier it was said that criminals were virtually being shown as the good guys, and the good guys as the bad guys.

The Conservative Party has spent about $10 million to fight street gangs and try to find a solution to this problem. Doesn't media technology, which virtually exalts the dark side of our society, have a harmful effect? Regardless of what will be said around this table, we may well have problems and not be able to solve them.

What do you think of that?

[Harry Delva]

What you say is correct.

When I think of the youths and street gangs we see these days, I say that street gangs are in the heads of young people. Why? Because, with millions of dollars, the media have the opportunity to promote them.

We're talking about promoting gangsterism. Earlier, I cited 50 Cent, who's the ninth richest man in the United States, after Bill Gates and others. So he's one of the richest men on this continent, thanks to video and the video game, an extremely violent video game, where you see him using weapons, weapons that he really uses.

For our youth, this is the only way to identify with someone, since they have to identify with what's going on in the United States. They're going to identify with what they see in the media, which reflects them. They're going to identify with films like New Jack City, which is ultimately trying to expose a situation. But what youths remember is that the actor in the film can do that and that it's cool to be like that. These days, most young people wear G Unit brand clothing. That 50 Cent's brand. For young people, belonging to G Unit is a statement that they belong to an extremely powerful group.

Unfortunately, as long as the media continue to present this kind of thing, these kinds of films... Recently, 50 Cent's film was presented and we saw what that caused. What did we see? A group of young people went and fired a weapon at a police car because they saw that scene in his film.

Young people know that 50 Cent has nine bullets in his body. At the same time, he's one of the biggest hip hop stars. That means that, if I ever take nine bullets in my body, that's okay; that's the dream of youths today.

Unfortunately, since they don't see the positive part of what he represents on TV, youths are forced to buy and to embrace exactly the most negative aspect, which unfortunately is street gangs. When I say street gangs, I'm really talking about the Bloods and the Crips, those gangs that were born in the United States and that youths in Quebec are establishing. But when you talk about Bloods and Crips, that's also related to the war between them, and that war between them is also occurring between the various singers. For example, young people will take certain singers who are Bloods, who'll show the colour red, whereas others will show the colour blue.

Our youths are living at a time when all they eat and swallow is, first of all, the Internet. Now there's a portal on the Internet called YouTube. Problems are starting in Montreal now on YouTube. Young people call that “bitching”, as it were, if you'll pardon the expression. In other words, on YouTube, you'll have one group of young people who will throw a song at another group, and that group will repeat it. Then what do we see? Drive-by shootings will be happening in Montreal North. But where did that start? On the Internet, on YouTube. Young people have started throwing things like that at each other.

We've definitely designed tools to enable us to make progress much more quickly, but young people also very quickly use those tools to achieve their ends. What are their ends? It's to believe that, through the Internet, for example, they can sell their gangsta rap and take control of certain areas and the fact is they're doing it. So they no longer need to yell at each other on the street corner; they can yell at each other on YouTube, then shoot at each other in the Saint-Michel neighbourhood, for example. And that's the reality of 2007.

It's also true that an enormous amount of money has been spent, but until we think first about the people who've been in the field for a certain time and who know exactly what's happening... When we talk about the gang problem, some people have been around for 15 to 20 years working in this environment, including Maison d'Haiti and others. People very often can describe, present very beautiful projects, and then they try something, whereas there are already groups that don't try because they know how things work; they know where this comes from and they know where it's headed. They're there, in contact with young people; they talk to them every day. All they're asking is for a certain guarantee that they'll pay their rent in three or four months.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Delva.

I'm going to ask that the committee stay put for a few minutes.

Witnesses, I want to thank you. Our time is a bit extended, but I would like to give Ms. Jennings and Mr. Moore the opportunity to ask some questions also.

Ms. Jennings, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Hanger.

Thank you very much for the presentations, which I moreover found very interesting. Most of the questions that I would have liked to ask have already been asked, except for one. The answer was provided in part by Mr. Richmond.

Apart from the legislative amendments that the federal government could put in place to address the deficiencies and weaknesses of the system for combating gangsterism as a whole, what other measures could it adopt or develop to urge, encourage genuine cooperation, coordination, the sharing of networks and information, etc.?

Mr. Richmond, you referred to the Web site. Mr. Ouellette and Mr. Bélanger, you talked about a repository. Mr. Delva, you mentioned allocating financial resources to the groups that, for years, have been working on the ground, which is very fertile for raising and training gangsters at an early age. What other measures could be taken?

As legislators, we tend to think that we need another bill, other provisions, instead of focusing on what already exists and seeing what the deficiencies are and how, through the government, we can use all the measures at our disposal to remedy the situation.

That's all. Thank you.

[Claude Bélanger]

May I answer your question, madam?

I don't claim that this is the ultimate measure. As Mr. Ouellette said, money is the lifeblood. For my part, I said that organized crime and the proceeds of crime are indissociable. Despite all the efforts that have been made, it seems to me that the Criminal Code lacks a presumption concerning the proceeds of crime, as a result of which, when the Crown has proven a certain number of elements, it's up to the accused to explain that he has in his hands assets that can in no way be justified based on his legitimate income.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

It's not enforced, for a wrong reason, but Bill C-53 provides for that.

[Sgt Guy Ouellette]

There's an annoying phrase in Bill C-53: the offence has to be proven, and the judge has discretion... It's the judge who grants the right to... That's not reversing the burden of proof. When the judge refuses because the required demonstration has not been made, he relies on C-53.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

The burden of proof comes into play in the second analysis; that's clear. The purpose of the next motion that must be introduced is to evaluate C-53. Yesterday I learned that a first leading case will be mounted by the RCMP. I'm just as troubled as Mr. Ouellette to learn that, a year and a half later, we haven't used it, but, on the other hand, as long as we live in a system in which the Charter applies, we'll never be able to completely reverse the burden of proof.

The burden of proof will always be reversed in a second analysis. Once the chain of possession has been established and it has been determined where the asset comes from and through which hands it passed, Bill C-53 provides for a reversal of the burden of proof. However, I admit that that proof is hard to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Monsieur Ménard, that's enough. I want to give Mr. Moore an opportunity to reply. I know that both Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Ouellette would really like to respond to you as well, but we'll save that for a moment or two and let Mr. Moore go through his presentation.

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I just have a quick question.

I do appreciate that any one of you could have filled an entire committee. You've raised a lot of important issues—youth at risk, the resources for police—and took particular note of the need to better deal with communication between police and the different levels of government. That's something that this government is going to continue to strive for--to work on methods so that we can better facilitate that cooperation. Specifically, on youth at risk, I know that the Minister of Public Safety has a keen interest in that.

One component of all of what we can do, as federal legislators, is on the legislation side, on the Criminal Code side, and we are dealing right now with a bill that does target gang-related activity. Bill C-10 targets gang-related activity, particularly when it involves handguns, but also any weapon, if it involves a gang-related activity. So I want to get some comment.

Mr. Richmond, I believe you said in your presentation that

...it is likely that in most prosecutions for a crime committed with a firearm, proving the use of a restricted or prohibited firearm will be easier than proving a connection with a criminal organization.

That's one of the reasons that provision is in there, because we've mentioned that in these cases in Toronto we've had a number of summers now that have seen such an increase in violence over what people are used to. We heard from Chief Blair from Toronto. He mentioned the type of weapons that are often used in these crimes, the prevalence right now and the difficulty in targeting gang-related activity, and the fact that there's an acknowledgement on the part of many of the participants that there's not going to be a severe consequence because they know many of their fellow gang members have not been met with a severe consequence for their actions.

Would any of you like to comment specifically on Bill C-10, on the fact that it does bring in some tougher sentences for people who use a restricted or prohibited firearm or for one of the designated offences when it is linked to a criminal organization? With respect to some of the offences targeted—attempted murder, robbery, extortion, aggravated sexual assault—many of those involve criminal actions that have been associated with gang activity. Would any number of you like to comment on how Bill C-10 will impact on that?

[Sgt Guy Ouellette]

Bill C-10 will definitely permit certain things, such as increasing prison terms and putting offences in perspective. Frequent reference is made to criminal organizations in Bill C-10, but proving that an organization is a criminal organization will continue to be a problem. Everyone knows that the members of criminal organizations that monitor members flying their colours or gang leaders possess firearms. Everyone knows that, but you have to prove it on the facts before the court.

Everyone knows that criminal organizations have weapons caches, in houses and vehicles, among other places. Last Sunday evening, two of these individuals, who had gone to intimidate someone at the casino, were searched. There were firearms in the middle of the Montreal Casino. The problem for us will be to have to prove that these people are associated with a criminal organization. We'll have to prove that connection. It will be difficult to call people as witnesses to testify in court, to ask experts to establish that connection with the criminal organization or to present a definition. If it's in the act and we use it, we'll check. If we can't prove the connection, we'll check to see whether there's a provision under which someone can be charged with an offence punishable on summary conviction. That person would then be sentenced to a fine, and that would nevertheless appear on his criminal record.

We'll have tools, and they'll already be in place, which is marvellous. The day we're able to provide this evidence, to have more people, including experts, and to have better communication, those tools will already be in the Criminal Code. When the system is ready, we won't be forced to wait for the politicians to examine the bill. You've gotten a head start, and that's very good. That's a good thing for all of Canada. Everyone knows that criminal organizations, whether they're in Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg or anywhere in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick or Newfoundland, use firearms to do their work. Considering that, the system must ensure that the statutory provisions are enforced.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Richmond.

[Randall Richmond]

I want to start off by saying that I don't have a mandate here to comment on whether Bill C-10 should be adopted or not. I don't have a mandate from the Attorney General of Quebec to come out for or against the bill, so any comments I make on it are purely personal and engage only myself.

But I have had an opportunity to look at Bill C-10. I've also had an opportunity to read many of the transcripts of witnesses who came here in previous meetings of this committee. I can say to you, definitely, I am not against Bill C-10 at all. I was surprised to read in many of the transcripts of other witnesses that the debate seemed to be on whether mandatory minimum sentences are good or not. It surprised me, because in Bill C-10, for almost all the offences that are mentioned there, there already is a mandatory minimum prison sentence, and all that's being done in Bill C-10 is to raise it slightly in the case of restricted and prohibited firearms. In most cases it's an increase of one year for a first offence, and in some cases it's an increase of two years.

The really big increases are for repeat offenders who come back for a second or a third time within a period of 10 years. In the case of someone who hasn't learned his lesson the first time and is repeating within 10 years, I don't think those sentences are abusive.

So it's hard to see this legislation as extreme. I don't think it's extreme in any way. I think it's a serious attempt to try to attack a growing problem—that is, the use of firearms, particularly handguns—and it's true that we've seen that all across the country.

[Claude Bélanger]

I'd like to add that, in my experience, the burden of proof necessary to secure the additional sentences provided for by the bill is extremely heavy and that that sentence would ultimately be increased not very much if the accused pleaded guilty to the charge as laid. Once he had done that, the Crown would have to prove that he did it for a criminal organization, or on behalf of a criminal organization, or that he obtained the weapon through the criminal organization. The courts are so busy now that there is a real chance that part of the charge would be dropped, and your bill will simply have no effect. The burden is so heavy that it's not worth the trouble to try to prove the charge, since the accused would be sentenced to only one more year for the first offence.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

I do want to correct one thing. There's no need to prove under this bill that it was committed with a weapon that was obtained through crime. It just has to have been committed with a restricted or prohibited weapon as defined. So that's specifically targeting individuals, gang organizations, using handguns or sawed-off shotguns. If anyone uses a sawed-off shotgun or a handgun, whether it's gang related or not, that is captured by this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Toller or anyone else, do you have any comment?

[Ross Toller]

The only comment is that, as you know, we're on the receiving end, obviously, of the legislation as things pick up, and have appeared before the committee before in terms of the potential impacts this would have in a correctional frame. We're very pleased to have been able to have done that earlier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Toller.

Mr. Delva, did you want to make a quick comment?

[Harry Delva]

I'll be brief. This could be a very good thing because, in certain areas, such as Saint-Michel and Montreal North, people are starting to be afraid. These days, you can rent a weapon. That means that the weapon will be rented from someone; it will be passed to someone, who will settle what he has to settle, and then it will go back into the loop. That weapon turns over. When you see that youths of 13, 14 and 15 have the opportunity to obtain weapons, that definitely makes us extremely afraid in the community.

However, I'd especially like it to be possible, and we have certain laws, to promote them, so that everyone can understand them and know they exist. Most young people experiencing these kinds of things today don't know this at all. It's only when they appear before a judge perhaps that they learn about this sword of Damocles dangling over their heads. I think it would be very interesting to be able to do this for all the students and not to be afraid to go into the schools and explain exactly what that means.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Delva.

Go ahead, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

Thank you all for your testimony.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I would like to thank the committee for staying as long as they have, and thank certainly the witnesses for bearing with us. We're about half an hour past our normal time, so we really appreciate your comments and the information that you have presented here. We have lots to think about. Thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned. Our steering committee will reconvene shortly.