Justice Committee on June 13th, 2006

[Jeanine LeRoy]

My point is that those are the exigent and emergency circumstances in the Criminal Code generally. There isn't anything else that we've come to know or need.

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

That's all, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Thompson.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

Thank you, folks, for coming and making your presentation. I'm gathering, Ms. Wood and Mr. Swan, that your answer to the situation is that this section should be eliminated in its entirety. Is that correct?

[Alexi Wood]

That's our first position, yes.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Are you likewise of the same position, Ms. LeRoy?

[Jeanine LeRoy]

Our position is that it's still too early to tell, but I strongly urge the committee to realize that they haven't had to use it. Why is it there?

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Are you aware of the submission that was given in the testimony by the police department that was here?

[Jeanine LeRoy]

Yes, I've read it.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

They seemed to be quite satisfied with this section. They've operated under it for five years, and they're glad it's there. As you would know, they would not like anything to be taken away, as it's presently written, nor would they want anything added to it. They think it's strong enough, and they think they're able to operate within that scope. They feel they've been quite successful, although we're waiting for the reports to verify that is the case.

But one thing has puzzled me since we've started this. I've had some conversations with a few police officers, including our chairman, who's an ex-police officer, about some of the activities of the police in regard to trying to get the job done in protecting society. That's their main mission. On the circumstances of the sequence of events that take place in undercover situations, from some of the stories I've heard, I don't know how you can possibly get prior approval or cover every aspect of it.

I think I represent a pretty solid group of citizens in this country who put their total faith and trust in a trained department, a group of people who are out there doing their utmost to protect people from the criminal element as best they can. We need to listen to these people, support them, and provide them with all the tools in the toolbox that will enable them to protect society.

As you know, the world is changing, and it's getting to be a very strange world to live in. I know that some of my colleagues would say I'm fear-mongering. But when things happen and an 11-year-old is taken off a scooter when going to a video store to get a movie, it bothers people, and it bothers me.

We've got experts in the trade; they're called the police. Within the police department, they have authorities above them. Nobody operates on their own; they all have authorities and internal controls. I think they not only look after the safety of the public, as a main idea, but make absolutely certain that they work within the scope of the law, as provided by this section. I only hope the reports we get indicate that to the fullest.

What puzzles me is that I keep hearing the comment over and over, from people such as yourselves, that we must strike a balance. I've heard from members of this committee that we must strike a balance, and you hear it from the public. We must strike a balance, but a balance according to whom? Is it according to you folks? Is it according to the general public?

The majority of the people out there put a lot of trust and faith in the police to do their jobs, and the police are trained to do that. As to faith in the politicians who are supposed to make the laws so they can operate, well, that would probably be the last place in which I'd put any trust, being a politician. But dadgummit, we have a real job to do in this world. This world is not the best and most comfortable world to live in because of the amount of crime that's around, with gangs, drugs, and all the paraphernalia.

I don't understand what you mean by striking a balance. What would make you happy in striking a balance? Would it be eliminating this section? That's what I hear you want to do. It wouldn't make a lot of people happy. The balance is according to whom? Why do we use the phrase “strike a balance” when we don't even know what it means?

That's my only question, if you want to respond to what I said.

I don't think people like you put enough faith in the people who do the job of protecting society—our police departments. We must do all we can to support them in their cause. I trust them to take care of themselves and not go overboard in any situation because they know their limits. The limits are there, and the Charter of Rights is there.

Go for it, boys and girls. Do a good job. Look after us. We need you.

Let's get off their backs.

That's how I feel. You can comment, if you like. If not, pass on to the next one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Swan.

[Ken Swan]

I think I can detect a question in there, sir.

Maybe the best place to start is to say that probably all of us trust the police as much as you do. We have to trust their protection of our rights and our liberties as much as you do. Many of us have had close contact with the police. Many of us talk to them, deal with them in our work, and have them as witnesses in various proceedings. None of this is about attacking the police.

This is really about deciding to what extent the law runs the country and to what extent the police do. We're simply not prepared to allow the police to submerge without proper control and with an authority to break the law under fairly broad circumstances. It's what we mean by striking the balance. If they're going to be able to do that, we should know about it, we should be able to comment on it, and we should be able to consider whether it's in all of our best interests.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

On that point, I would like to go back to what I said about hearing from those in the field, that virtually, through the sequence of events that take place, I don't know how that could possibly happen. Some things just happen, and you have to trust the judgment of the individual or individuals at that moment.

We can't cover everything. I really think our whole energy and emphasis should be, yes, on having the guidelines and living within them, but taking away a tool.... They won't do any more undercover work, sir. They have said that if they lose this, forget about that ever happening. They said that loud and clear. In fact, it stopped, according to them, when the court case came that required this legislation to be developed. They stopped.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Mr. Comartin.

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

On a point of order, that's not what they said, and it's not fair for Mr. Thompson to say they said it.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Well, maybe I'm mistaken, but that's what I heard.

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

Maybe, but that's not what they said. They didn't say they would stop the undercover work they do, which is much broader than anything they do in terms of breaking the law. What they said is they would not undertake any operations that would require them to break the law. That was the position they took after the Supreme Court—

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Well, that's what I was trying to mean. I'm sorry I didn't get that across.

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

Okay. The undercover work they do is humungous in size compared with the few cases where they break the law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Are there any more replies to Mr. Thompson?

Ms. LeRoy.

[Jeanine LeRoy]

It seems to me, sir, when you ask for whom we are achieving this balance or why you are asked to review this matter two or three years hence in order to see if you've struck the right balance, the short answer is you're striking the right balance for the courts, who review your legislation. The courts take into account the balance between the rule of law—which is your concern for living in a society that is properly patrolled, if you will, and made safer by the police—and on the other hand the rights of the citizens, including those who are accused of crimes. It's for them we're working towards ensuring that the balance is struck between the rule of law, which is your concern for safety in the community, and the rights of citizens of this country, including those who are accused of committing crimes.

The courts are the ones, whether you like it or not, who tell you ultimately whether you've struck that balance. And it's their language, “striking the balance”. That's what they do every day, and that's what we help them do every day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

Thank you, Ms. LeRoy.

I have a question on that point. It's an anecdotal situation, but really it's a common occurrence, if you will, in police investigations.

You have an organized criminal group. Now, they're involved in a series of fundraising activities, such as armed robberies. They go into a bank or credit union or some other institution and decide they're going to use as much violence as necessary—within some limits, I guess—such as jumping up and down on the counter, waving guns around, forcing tellers to the floor with guns in their faces, screaming at them, and cleaning out the till, and out the door they go. This group continues this kind of activity; they keep on their reign of terror. They're all balaclavaed, so nobody knows who they are.

Now a lead comes in, and there's an effort to try to obtain as much information about this group as possible and to try to get people as close to them as possible. One of them is arrested on a minor charge, or an outstanding warrant—which is in and out—and an operator decides, we don't know who we have here, but there's some connection, so let's find out. So they assault him and obtain a sample of hair from him, and lo and behold, it matches the samples in the balaclava.

Does this section apply?

[Jeanine LeRoy]

Well, my short answer is they are permitted to commit an assault, short of causing bodily harm or death, so that's okay, but they are not allowed, as I read the legislation, to usurp the usual manner in which one obtains evidence. So there would be an argument to be made by a defence counsel of any measure—

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

The court of the land, right?

[Jeanine LeRoy]

Yes, in a court.