Justice Committee on May 30th, 2006

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I now have the second date clear in my mind. The first one was around May of 1999, when the Campbell and Shirose decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada. The second was February 1, 2002, when the law enforcement justification came into force.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

So for approximately three years you laid off doing the things you normally do to fight crime.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Correct.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Did it have any impact on the increase in crime, by any chance? Do you have any idea? Do you suspect it might have?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I don't have any statistics that I can rely on to answer your question, but I can tell you that the number of operations we conducted in that area came to a halt.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Obviously things progressed on the wrong end of the stick. It pretty well stands to reason that if you're not going to fight it, then it's going to continue, and it's going to get worse.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

That would be a very reasonable conclusion to reach.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Yes.

After this decision was made.... To me this is like the old vice squad scenario. When you work in a vice squad you do all kinds of things to trap people and to catch them breaking the law. I remember people complaining about unmarked police cars, about everything from that to you name it.

Were all of these things part of this court decision? Did all of these kinds of activities come under jeopardy because of that court decision? I know that drugs are the exception here, with the drug control act, but what about the rest of the things?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

In very simple terms, basically the Supreme Court of Canada said that unless Parliament has specifically exempted you from a particular piece of legislation, if it's an offence for you, then it's an offence for me, unless I had been specifically exempted from it in legislation. They continued on to say that if Parliament wants you to go and commit a certain act or omission that would otherwise be an offence, they should then provide you with that exemption.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay. I understand that.

Previously, in the years before when you did all these practices, what caused...? The court decision said that you could no longer do it. Was that based on anything, other than you can no longer do it? What was the reason?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

It was challenged. We were relying on common law, precedents, crown immunity, and so on and so forth, and the court said no.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

The things you were relying on were in existence for many years, but those things disappeared after that decision.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

They were accepted, but it wasn't written law. It was accepted by the courts and by all levels of court, until it was challenged in the Campbell and Shirose case.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Like me, you're probably wondering what went through the minds of the people who said you can no longer do that. What was it based on? Was it not working?

You normally stop practices when they don't work, but I think you guys were doing a pretty good job over the years. I'm trying to get it straight in my mind. Why did we stop something like that? What caused that?

It had been going on for a period of three years. We had to go through this to present legislation in order to enable you to go back to doing it. I'm glad it was presented, I'm glad we have the legislation, and I'm extremely glad that you like what you've got in terms of this legislation to enable you to do your job of fighting crime.

I'd like to ask you another question, but I don't know how much time I have left.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

You have time.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I have time.

I have recently been going into penitentiaries to check things out. This may be an area on which you may not be able to answer, but I've seen people and I've talked to individuals in solitary confinement, for example:

“Why are you in solitary confinement?”

“For my own safety.”

“But you're in prison, aren't you safe?”

“No, I'm not.”

“Why are you in this cell?”

“I didn't pay my rent.”

“I beg your pardon, you're in jail; you don't have to pay rent.”

“Oh yes, you do, if you live in a certain ward, because it's run by a gang, this gang and that gang.”

This was true in every penitentiary that I visited. They said that the gangs are getting out of control. Is this not the kind of law that would enable undercover enforcement to go into the prisons to clean this up? Somebody has to stop it; it's on a rampage.

I asked about this at the committee in the last term, two years ago. There's a signal out there that there is a very serious gang problem within our penitentiaries. Shouldn't we have a subcommittee to look into this and see how serious it is? Maybe some action needs to be taken, legislation or something.

My question to you is this. Are you able to infiltrate penitentiaries and get into undercover work in that kind of an area, where crime is being committed by gangs that exist? They're being run from the inside, coached by the outside, sponsored by the outside, funded by the outside, and decisions are made by leaders from the inside.

All that doesn't make sense to this old boy. I find it really strange that a person in a penitentiary would have to go to solitary confinement for protection because he didn't pay his rent. I'm not angry at anybody, but what in the world is going on? Are you able to do something about it, and can you with this kind of legislation? Will that enable you to do something about it?

Sir, something has to be done.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

This question, sir, may best be addressed to Correctional Service Canada, but I'll say this. The legislation itself is not intended to allow us to operate in certain places, but it is intended for certain acts or omissions.

To answer your questions, if we were asked or if we had a reason to be in a penitentiary to conduct an operation, yes, we can and have.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Under this legislation?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Not necessarily under this legislation.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

So my question really is, do we have to do something with this legislation to enable you to do some operation under different circumstances?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

No. This legislation would allow us to commit certain acts or omissions in any place. It's not restricted to outside or inside a prison, or in a certain environment. It's not aimed at an environment, but rather, at the acts or omissions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Lee. This is a five-minute round.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

Does the data you've given us here today just pertain to O Division, or across Canada? Does it include provincial services that the force does, does it include the municipal services that the force does, or do we have to go and check with them as well?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Which data, specifically?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I'm talking about the data you provided on the number of designations during 2002-03 and the fact that there have been no emergency designations.

I think we have data here. There's a report.