Justice Committee on May 30th, 2006

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I do recall. I do recall clearly.

The Campbell and Shirose case occurred at a time when the Narcotic Control Act was in place prior to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. In that case, in an undercover operation that we were involved in, we posed as a major drug syndicate, if you will, a criminal organization. The police were posing as a criminal organization capable of supplying a large amount of drugs to high-level executives, if you will, of a criminal organization. When they found out that we were in a position to supply them with the drugs, they expressed interest. We asked for their money, we offered them the drugs, they gave us their money, and they were arrested.

The act of offering falls under the definition of “trafficking”; offering to sell drugs falls under that. As such, the defence at that point made the case and convinced the courts that we had committed an offence by in fact offering to sell drugs.

The ironic part about all this is that when the case made it to court, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was in place, allowing us to traffic in drugs. Nevertheless, the case had to be judged on the state of the nation, as it were, at the time the offence took place.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

So the accused then were, I presume, acquitted on the basis that their rights had been violated or they had been entrapped or some such thing?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Initially, yes.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

And then what?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I believe at the end of it there was a new trial ordered, but it wasn't pursued.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

All right. And that was a conscious decision made by the crown?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Correct.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Thompson was endeavouring to make the point that undercover investigations essentially dried up—my phrase, not his—from 1999 to 2002. But that's an exaggerated statement or comment, is it not?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Yes, it is, to the extent that the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was in place, and therefore drug operations, undercover operations, continued.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

So undercover operations continued as they had been prior to 1999?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

No, that's not correct. Sorry, did you say drug undercover operations continued?

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

No, undercover operations.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Then that's not correct, no.

Drug undercover operations continued, given the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, but immigration-type operations, customs-and-excise-type operations, counterfeit operations, came to a halt because there was no mechanism by which we could be involved in this type of activity, given that it was an offence.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Are you, collectively, entirely satisfied with the present wording of the legislation, or is there a suggestion you have for the committee to alter it in some fashion?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

As I indicated earlier, I'm satisfied with the legislation as it exists.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Is that a unanimous opinion, if I can ask that?

[Supt Thomas Bucher]

Yes.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. St. Amand, and good questions.

Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Souccar, my question relates to the issue of disclosure, and on two fronts. Obviously, since Stinchcombe we have a significant burden on law enforcement agencies for the depth and the breadth of disclosure requirements. How do you feel this affects that? Are there any concerns that you may have in terms of the safety and security of individuals involved in these investigations if their names are released? And is there a way to make an exception to protect against that? And a larger concern on that same front of disclosure for me would be in terms of delays, where some judges choose to give three-for-one dead time or two-for-one dead time. Is this going to enhance potential delays being another potential opportunity to be utilized to delay the actual judicial proceedings?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

In terms of the identity of civilian agents who we use.... And it's not so much the identity of civilian agents. It's well established that the accused has to face his accuser to be able to make full answer in defence. This is something that we expect, something the civilian agent expects: to be able to show up in court and testify. This is why we have the witness protection program.

The question we have more of a concern with is the publication of techniques that we use in the undercover operation; that would be more of a concern for us, and the courts not being as willing to hear that type of information in camera, if you will, or not suppress any publication of the technique that was used.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

In terms of the wording of the legislation, can you think of anything that could alleviate that concern? Is there anything that could be crafted to create that exception?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I don't believe that it falls within the realm of this legislation whatsoever.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

And in terms of the issue of delays, do you have any concerns on that front?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Could you repeat your question regarding delays?