Justice Committee on May 30th, 2006

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

This would be an additional form of disclosure. It's more information that has to be provided. Would this cause increased delays? Is this something that would take significant time to provide, and if so, would it take longer than the substantive disclosure that's required to be provided?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Are you talking about delays as they relate to the use of this legislation?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Yes.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

No, absolutely not. There is no added delay whatsoever in disclosing anything related to this legislation. It's simply another technique that's used. As Tom was explaining earlier, this is a very small portion of an investigation. We could have an investigation that lasts four years or three years, and we may use the law enforcement justification twice to purchase counterfeit money and a passport, but the rest of the investigation may be trying to track down the criminal network, how it operates and so on and with part VI, wiretap interceptions, surveillances, and so on. So the disclosure of the use of this law enforcement justification would be a very minor part of this overall investigation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

You still have more time, Mr. Brown.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

I think I've covered what I was concerned about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you for all your testimony. It seems like everything is working very well. It's very hard to find improvements, but I'll keep trying.

Deputy Commissioner, when I originally asked, you said there was nothing you would want to change, but in later testimony you said that you hoped that the exemptions not be in the original act, to draw that line in the sand, just in case, I guess, in a situation that you'd obviously meet in organized crime, that you may be challenged to prove that you're undercover and it would cross the line of one of those three exemptions. Would your preference still be that that not be in the act?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

We've dealt with these challenges for four and a half years almost, and we've dealt with them well. This was a concern of many bodies that had concerns with this piece of legislation. The Criminal Law Association, the defence bar, and so on were very concerned that the police would actually commit crimes such as murder. In fact, I believe they had published a publication called Getting away with murder. That's what it took to put to rest the concerns of some who thought that we would actually go and commit these types of crimes and not be accountable for them. We've dealt with them over the years and we're satisfied that we can continue dealing with them.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

So there hasn't been an instance in the time since the act was put in place when a police officer or an authorized informant's safety has been put in jeopardy by not being able to perform those three things?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Not to my knowledge.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Have you had any complaints about the act? I can ask about two sources: first, groups like you just mentioned, civil liberties groups or anyone, since the act has been put in place, or complaints about other organizations--that they shouldn't have this authority?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I've read several articles in Lawyers Weekly, the criminal law reports, that express some concern over this legislation, not because of a particular act or investigation that the police were involved in, but rather the overall idea or concept of the police being described as being above the law. As I explained in my presentation, this is not about the police being above the law. It's about organized crime and it's about providing the police with the tools to carry on with their investigation in a very carefully circumscribed piece of legislation and a tight framework that we in fact have tightened even more than the legislation.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Turning to the other source of potential complaints, the working level, have you heard any complaints since the law has been enacted from the lowest-level officers who would be working undercover and would be authorized for this, that they think it could be more liberal or freer or give them more protection in any way?

[Supt Thomas Bucher]

I have not. I think what we've proceeded to do with making the restrictions in our internal policy tighter than the legislation, as Assistant Commissioner Souccar stated, has really made an impact and has proven a point. When we look at what acts and omissions have occurred and with what frequency to date, and at the fact that there are such rigid controls around this, if there were any type of dissatisfaction at the working level, as you indicate, I think it might be that we internally really scrutinize what we do. But there's a very specific reason for that. I think, from what the usage has shown to date, that's only been a good thing.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Mr. Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I was in the House when Allan Rock introduced Bill C-95. I was there during consideration of Bills C-24 and C-36. I represent eastern Montreal. At one time, organized crime was very active there. The car bomb that killed 13-year-old Daniel Desrochers exploded in my riding.

This attack is behind my interest in fighting organized crime. In my opinion, the role of this committee is to determine whether the provisions we adopted creating exceptions... You have a number of other tools before having recourse to these provisions.

When Bill C-95 was under consideration, there were 33 outlaw motorcycle gangs in Canada. Can you give us any information on how such provisions were used to take down organized crime networks? Has the situation improved significantly? Based on the way things were in 1995, could we say that Canada has succeeded to some extent in curbing this threat?

Perhaps you are not the best person to ask. Other people are perhaps more knowledgeable about how these networks operate but, in my opinion, there is a direct link between these provisions and the effective presence of organized crime in Canada.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

One thing for sure, in your area of Montreal with the outlaw motorcycle gangs, the Nomads, the Hell's Angels, and so on, is that there's been quite an effective job done in Montreal—in Quebec—against outlaw motorcycle gangs.

The legislation you refer to, the criminal organization legislation, has not to my knowledge been used to the extent it should be. I'm not sure exactly why, but it has not been used to the extent it should be. It has several provisions in place that I think can be of great assistance—the extended wiretap authorizations, and so on. They have been used in Ontario, as you know, to declare the Hell's Angels a criminal organization. They've been used in British Columbia, and I know they've been used extensively in Quebec. I'd like to think they've had an effect on our ability to combat organized crime.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Thompson, when you complete your questions, we will go to an in camera session.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

I'd just like to know, if sections 25.1 to 25.4 were removed from the code, how you would fight crime.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Thank you for your question, sir.

We would be back to where we were between May 1999 and 2002, having to find methods other than undercover operations and infiltrating criminal organizations, because our very ability to obtain evidence against these criminal organizations through the undercover technique would be extremely limited.

We would be left again with conventional techniques of surveillance and wiretaps, and as I indicated earlier in my testimony, although they're valuable techniques they very often are not effective, in that criminal organizations don't talk over the phone very much. It becomes very difficult; you start playing a guessing game. They are very effective combined with an undercover operation, in that one can corroborate the other. But on their own, they're not very effective.

So I think it would impact us very negatively.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

So if my partner and I were in an undercover operation and made a decision because we thought it would be best to resolve the problem but it wasn't quite covered under the training program.... I'm just trying to get a scenario.

Is the individual protected if he takes that one extra step that would be law-breaking but may not be covered? Who determines that? I don't know if I'm making myself clear. I could almost see two guys saying, “Should we do this? I don't think we're allowed to, but it would solve the problem if we did.”

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

With the existence of this legislation?

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

That protection.