Justice Committee on March 25th, 2009

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

From a tourism perspective--and you are primarily a board of trade--are you concerned that the reputation Vancouver is getting in light of the gang warfare is going to compromise the number of tourists who are going to be visiting Vancouver in 2010?

[Darcy Rezac]

It's probably a blessing in disguise because it's causing a spotlight to focus on issues that we've had for years and years and haven't addressed. We're not doing this because of the Olympics, let me be very clear; we're doing this because we have a serious problem with crime in Canada and a particular one in Vancouver right now. This is not the new normal. We at the Board of Trade are not going to let this stand. The Chief of Police, Jim Chu, will not let this stand, nor will the RCMP, nor will our politicians and our elected officials from British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada. We're confident of that. We have to fix this thing. The Olympics give us a good reason to do it more quickly, so in that way perhaps it's a blessing in disguise.

We see a heightened will on the part of everybody to address some of these issues. Angus Reid told me recently that a poll would be coming out very soon that will show crime in British Columbia rising right to the top as an issue for the first time. It's right up there with the other issues like the economy and so on. I haven't seen that yet. Perhaps I shouldn't be telling you that, but I think I should, given the circumstances.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you for those answers.

We're going to move to Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair,

Thank you, witnesses, for coming.

I certainly want to dispel one of the impressions that Mr. Rathgeber left us with, unintentionally I'm sure, in saying that all parliamentarians are wed to their BlackBerrys and all organized criminals are as well. I'm sure he didn't mean to lump those people together.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I say that on behalf of the parliamentary union here.

I am very encouraged, Mr. Rezac, that you have recognized that the issue of preventing crime has both a beginning and an end. I was very encouraged by that phrase. I am not on the bandwagon of judge bashing; I know too many judges. I believe that somewhat opposite to that is that they are very strenuously and vigorously applying the law as it is written. The buck stops here and in legislatures--

[Darcy Rezac]

Precedents--

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

--and in city halls that have bylaws.

To that end, I'd like to dig right into the law and ask Mr. Cabana whether the RCMP and police chiefs in general have looked at section 467.1, which is the definition of “criminal organization”. I've been here three years and I know we've talked about gangs de rue, street gangs. I know that in the news stories--and we're talking about connecting with the public--we're talking about street gangs and gangs. I don't think you'll find the word “gang” or “street gang” or “gang de rue” in the Criminal Code. Doesn't that show a disconnect, I guess, between the laws as we have them and the problems we perceive?

In light of the very sparse declarations by courts, which are merely following the law on criminal organizations, do we really need to revisit that section and widen the definition, so to speak, or widen the net, to give judges more tools to deal more harshly with these gangs?

[A/Commr Mike Cabana]

Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

Absolutely. Any effort to try to streamline the process surrounding the application of this piece of legislation, section 467.1, which defines organized crime, would be welcome. There's a reluctance across the country, unfortunately as much from a law enforcement standpoint as a justice standpoint, towards applying or using the provisions found in that legislation.

There are a number of factors, but it's mostly because of the burden of proof, the requirements in the burden of proof that we're held to in order to prove that the organization being investigated does in fact fall within the parameter of a criminal organization. I think there would be a benefit to looking at this.

The review should also consider the possibility of looking at the need to avoid duplication. Presently, if we have a prosecution in a specific area that looks at identifying a specific group as a criminal organization, and there's another prosecution somewhere in the country or even in the same jurisdiction, we have to go through the same mechanism again, even though the group was recognized as a criminal organization. We have to re-initiate the process, which is, in my humble opinion, pure duplication.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Good.

Mr. Rezac, you talked about Italy. We don't get too much experience in comparative law here. In light of the fact that you really think the system is broken and that mayors are saying we should have elected judges, I think we know that in the United States they have problems with drugs and gangs and they have elected judges and have had for some time. I think we know that they've tried mandatory minimums and filled jails and that's not necessarily working.

I guess there's a general question. If you had to pick and choose the perfect set of laws, selection of judges, and resourcing of police forces, is there a sort of combo you could come up with in looking at various countries?

[Darcy Rezac]

First, I'm not using Italy as a model for anything, except that I'm aware that they have a fairly successful program for dealing with people who are addicted to drugs. It's worth looking at. I'm not passing judgment on whether it's good or bad.

With respect to the United States, there's some mythology. Some of the measures used in the United States have worked. In fact, if you read the book Freakonomics by Steven Levitt, a prize-winning economist, you see, in fact, even using police-reported crimes alone, that the crime rate in Vancouver is a multiple of what it is in New York City, Detroit, or Los Angeles.

Violent crime, by some measures, is higher in Canada than it is in the U.S. Their crime rates have been going down. They do a victim study every year. Their crime rates have been going down dramatically over the last 10 years. The “three strikes and you're out” works. It's harsh justice and we're not advocating that, but in fact taking people who commit multiple crimes off the streets reduces your crime rate. Having more police works.

There's some common mythology that we've had, going back to the 1971 philosophy, that putting people in jail doesn't work. Well, you know what, folks? It works for victims. It may not work for the criminals, who might still be criminals when they come out, but it sure works for the victims. When people are locked up, they can't steal our cars, break into our homes, and shoot each other. They can't do that. That's what we're calling for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you. We'll move on to Mr. Uppal.

You have five minutes.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank the witnesses for coming.

The questions are mostly for Mr. Cabana. We heard yesterday that there was a major drug bust. I think around $13 million worth of drugs were captured and a very sophisticated and coordinated smuggling operation was disrupted. Now, this came of some very excellent work that our police forces were doing with forces across the border in the U.S. Can you describe a bit our working relationship with the police force in the United States?

[A/Commr Mike Cabana]

Certainly. We have a number of different initiatives where we work very closely with our American counterparts. I guess probably front and centre to the issues we're discussing here today would be the integrated border enforcement teams, which in fact are composed of five core agencies, two of which are Canadian--the Canada Border Services Agency as well as the RCMP. The other three American agencies are the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the U.S. border patrol.

Now, those teams also involve numerous other agencies, and depending on the area where the units are, they engage local enforcement agencies. So whether it's a municipal police force, whether it's state police, those units are actually involved. They were involved, I believe, in the case you were referring to. They played a significant role.

As with any case, whether we're dealing with another agency domestically or with an agency internationally, there are always issues that surface in terms of roles and responsibilities within the context of the investigation. I guess this is the message that I would like to leave with the committee here. The days of law enforcement agencies fighting for their turf, much as what we're seeing in the lower mainland with the criminal organizations, have gone by. The law enforcement community in Canada and internationally is actually working very closely to better coordinate their efforts and to share the information.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

In your opinion, how important is the drug trade to these criminal organizations? Would you say that it is the primary source of income for the gang organizations?

[A/Commr Mike Cabana]

I believe you're absolutely right. The drug trade remains the primary source. What we're seeing, though, is a lot of those criminal organizations are branching, if you want, and they're moving into other lucrative criminal ventures that maybe do not necessarily hold the same kind of risk as drug trafficking traditionally does. Now, whether we're talking about counterfeiting, dealing in counterfeit medicine or smuggling individuals across the border, really, those organizations are in the business of making money.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

How would you say that mandatory minimum sentences and the inclusion of a new aggravating factor for drug crimes, for example, for the offences committed for the purpose of an organized crime would disrupt criminal organizations?

[A/Commr Mike Cabana]

Depending on how it's applied, it would act partially as a deterrent. I say “partially” because I don't believe it would have the impact that the public might think it would have. But as Mr. Rezac mentioned, if they're incarcerated, they're not on the street, so it would provide an opportunity to impact their operations.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brian Murphy]

You have a whole minute.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

As politicians, we're approached with several different ideas, and one of those ideas is the idea of making some drugs non-criminalized or of legalizing them. How do you and your association feel about that?

[A/Commr Mike Cabana]

I believe, actually, it was a few years ago that the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police put out a resolution against decriminalizing drugs in Canada. Personally, I don't believe it's a solution; I don't think it would solve the problem. Again, these organizations are involved in making money. If you look at the tobacco industry right now, tobacco is legal in Canada and the same criminal organizations that are involved in drug trafficking are still involved in tobacco smuggling. So I don't think it would solve the problem.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Brian Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Uppal

Now we'll go to the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses as well. I enjoyed your testimony today.

Mr. Rezac has mentioned victims a couple of times, and I appreciate that. So often over the years the victims have been the forgotten voices in the equation when we've talked about the criminal justice system. You mentioned victims a couple of times, and people in communities being victimized.

One of the primary concerns we're hearing about is recidivists, repeat offenders, and we're talking about that today in the context of organized crime. In the last Parliament we introduced measures designed to disrupt criminal enterprise. They included mandatory penalties for the use of a firearm in the commission of an offence--that would be escalating. So if someone committed a crime with a gun, there would be a minimum sentence imposed. If they got out and did it again and were arrested or convicted again, there would be a greater minimum penalty imposed. I think to a lot of Canadians that makes a lot of sense, not only as a way of protecting Canadians from the individual perpetrators, but also in disrupting criminal enterprise.

As you know, we've introduced two pieces of legislation, one dealing with gang violence and the other dealing with drug crimes. As the Minister of Justice has said, we don't hold them out as the be-all and end-all; we look at them as steps in the right direction. When we accomplish these steps, we want to move on with new measures.

There are two points I'd like comments on from Mr. Rezac and then Mr. Cabana. One is on resolve, because last year this was not the issue it has been this year. Last year when we had criminal justice legislation it was very difficult to get it through this House in any measure. I mentioned mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes. The other was conditional sentences for serious crimes, where someone commits a serious crime but ends up serving their sentence from the comfort of their own home.

You're right that if you did a poll in Vancouver now this would be right at the top of people's minds. But how important is it for us as lawmakers that we maintain a resolve, when hopefully this isn't in the spotlight every week? How important is it, not just for the individual perpetrator but for breaking up criminal enterprises?

[Darcy Rezac]

That's an excellent question. All we can do is plead with you to have the resolve to see this through. Even if we rounded up all the gang members in Vancouver and put them behind bars, the problem would not be over. We'd still have that underlying problem.

I realize it has been politicized, and the reason the legislation didn't get through last session was because of politics and because public opinion polling didn't register this as a public issue in the same way it's beginning to register now. All I can do is ask the government to stop beating up on the opposition for not supporting it last year--and I'm sincere about that. When we met with the B.C. Liberal caucus, the Liberals, and the NDP on this visit, they told us they were very supportive of these things. They were alarmed by this and wanted to work with us and others in the government to help fix it. If they say that to the government, please accept it as a gesture of goodwill.

Everybody, let's make these current bills now and the ones that have to come, including the one to do away with the two-for-one--we understand it will be introduced on Friday.... Let's put that aside and do something for the victims and the country. I think we can do that. Everybody will benefit, because your constituents and our members, the people in B.C., certainly want to see that happen. I think there's an opportunity for non-partisan resolve to do the right thing. Please do that.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

If either of you want to comment on the criminal enterprise, as lawmakers we want to disrupt that. We want to have policies in place that do not allow for the criminal enterprise to continue to grow and be minimally impacted, when law enforcement does its good work and makes an arrest but the criminal enterprise lives on. How can we disrupt that enterprise, and how important is it that after making the arrest we have effective sentencing?