Justice Committee on April 1st, 2009

[C/Supt Todd G. Shean]

For both Michel and I, our backgrounds are in proceeds of crime, so we've experienced the actual audits of those businesses. It can be quite complex because some of the businesses, especially if they've been running for a while, will resort to accountants, lawyers. They are a legitimate business that is functioning in a business world, so you really have to separate the legitimacy to see how the business started, how it was funded to begin with, where the money came from. Really, you're doing a forensic accounting job on those businesses, and it is quite complex.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

That leads to my last question, which is a short one. We've talked about the legislative tools that need to be put in place. But it seems to me that when we talk about things such as the audits, it's a resource question. For each one of you, are legislative resources or financial resources the biggest problem in your day-to-day activities?

[C/Supt Todd G. Shean]

I think it's a combination of both. I don't think there's a simple answer.

I absolutely don't think any officer sitting before you today would say that more resources are not required. Normally when there is a requirement, we will come before the legislature and ask for those resources. On occasion, funding is an issue as well.

There are some tools that we require as well, which I know Mr. Cabana mentioned when he was here last week, and we mentioned it today. We need some of the legislative tools.

It's a combination of things that we require as law enforcement to address the avenue of organized crime in our communities.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Rathgeber for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for appearing today.

I'm going to limit my questions to Mr. Trudell. I have some concerns and questions regarding some of your comments, specifically on the amendments to the Criminal Code that will treat as first-degree murder any homicide that is committed as a result of organized crime or gang activity.

I specifically took careful notes during your opening comments when you called it labelling and said that labelling of such homicides as first-degree murder would do nothing. I'm confused by that.

I was a practising lawyer until my election. I'm not a criminal lawyer, but I have friends who are, and I talk to prosecutors. They tell me that for a first-degree murder charge, especially one that's being tried before a jury, the most difficult part of proving the offence is on the planning or the deliberate part of it. Would you agree with that, especially for a jury that has trouble understanding what is actually inside the mind of the accused?

[William Trudell]

I think it's fair to say that a strict level of proof has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder is planned and deliberate. I don't think the jurors in this country have a great deal of difficulty understanding that concept.

As a matter of fact, I think we're moving to standard jury charges throughout the country that judges would give in relation to these. I don't believe there seems to be any information or statistic that jurors are having difficulty interpreting what “planned” and ”deliberate” mean and what the difference between first- and second degree-murder is. I think that through judicial institutes, etc., judges have really gone out of their way to make them standard.

However, in response to your question, I think it's fair to say there is a higher onus on proving planning and deliberation because of the maximum punishment.

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

We really have an economy of time here. Thank you for that.

You will agree with me that “planned” or “deliberate” and “involved in gang activity” are not mutually exclusive. This gives the crown one of two choices in proving a first-degree murder charge. If Bill C-14 becomes law, the crown can prove planning and deliberation, which it's always been able to do, or the crown can go an entirely different route and attempt to prove it was involved in a gang activity.

[William Trudell]

I would think that as we progress, if this bill is passed, we're going to find out something about this. Quite frankly, there is some planning involved in most scenarios where a murder has taken place by people involved in criminal activity through organizations.

My position is that you're talking about making it difficult for jurors to understand planning and deliberation. I was suggesting that it's going to add a burden to crowns to try to prove what a criminal organization is, call the expert evidence, and then try to show the link.

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

I'm suggesting to you, sir, that it does not add a burden. It gives the crown an option.

[William Trudell]

No, I don't agree. There has to be some planning and some deliberation for first-degree murder. I find it very difficult to imagine situations where persons involved in criminal organizations or gang activity who carry out a murder wouldn't be charged with first-degree murder, unless it was accidental.

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

Is it not the current state of the law that if a homicide is occasioned in a sexual assault and the person dies, the crown need not prove that it was planned for the person to die? It is assumed to be first-degree murder. Is that not the current state of the law in Canada?

[William Trudell]

It certainly is.

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

In answer to Mr. Comartin's questions, you said you were not convinced that there would be a plethora of charges coming out of these amendments. If that is true, why are you opposed?

[William Trudell]

It's up to you to decide whether or not there's a need for this legislation. I'm suggesting that if there was a need for this legislation we would probably see a number of charges in this area. I would respectfully submit to you that we're not going to see it, because I believe the Criminal Code covers the situations that we've been talking about.

When capital punishment was done away with in this country, we decided there were certain offences that were deemed first-degree. As we progressed, the offence that you were referring to was also included. This was because the legislature, after intensive screening and consideration and testimony, decided that there was a gap and it was necessary. If that's what you decide here, then the bill goes forward.

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

Thank you, and my thanks to all the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Norlock.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.

I'm on another committee called the public safety committee. We were considering national security, I believe, with Mr. Comartin, in the last Parliament, and we were looking at counterfeit goods. I want to lead to how we feed organized crime. There's an importation of foreign goods. Any one of the witnesses can answer this—police witnesses, perhaps the chief in Halifax.

We were dealing with two types of counterfeit goods at the time. Some of them were fashionable items, like your Rolex watch that really isn't, or your Louis Vuitton purse. I made the horrible statement of saying no purse was worth $3,500, and a lot of the ladies disagreed. I'd like you to inform the people of Canada about what they're really doing when they go out and get these so-called deals to impress their friends who think they're the real thing.

Some of those counterfeit goods that we looked at were actually goods that we use every day. We were shown extension cords that, when you took the plastic off, contained very little metal, just little hairs of them. In buying such a product, people not only support criminal manufacturers but also endanger themselves and their fellow citizens.

Perhaps the superintendent or the chief could answer this question, and then maybe the chief could follow up.

[C/Supt Todd G. Shean]

In my presentation we spoke of counterfeit goods. We talk a lot about awareness. We have to ensure that the Canadian public is aware of where the money goes when they buy counterfeit goods. Organized crime has infiltrated these areas, because it is considered low-risk. So when you buy the designer purse, who gets the money that you've used to purchase that item? That's one concern. The awareness component is one that is very significant for us.

Then there is the safety component. A designer purse may not be dangerous, but some of these items are being used in automobiles, homes, and even toys. These items can cause harm to our citizens.

Those are the two points that we need to draw attention to, and I think one of the big issues is the awareness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Chief Beazley.

[Chief Frank A. Beazley]

I don't think I could add much more to that. I'm not an expert in this field. The little bit I do know is that we have to be concerned about safety--the extension cords, the batteries. The toys that the superintendent talked about may be made out of things like lead that could make our children sick. I think the public have to know that they're increasing their risk of maybe having their home burn down using these types of goods.

The other thing is that it's all about the money. Organized crime is greedy. People are always looking for a deal of some sort or another. But I think what we don't often talk about is that if we buy things legitimately, support legitimate business, it brings money back into your community. With these things that are often smuggled in, the money goes directly to the criminals, who use it for other types of criminal enterprises, and our communities all suffer in one way or another because of that.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you, Chief.

Would I not be correct, Superintendent, in saying that the person who buys the purse from organized crime...? This is going to come around to Bill C-14. Organized crime are the people who receive the benefits of it, and that assists them in buying drugs, and the drugs in turn cause the turf wars. So by buying that purse, the person who is very concerned about the bullets flying in their neighbourhood, or at the hospital or downtown when they're doing their shopping, is, in actual fact, facilitating those things happening. We as citizens have a responsibility to make sure that when we use our wallets, we don't go to the very thing that endangers our safety in the long run.

Is that too far-fetched, or is it pretty accurate?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Please be very short.

[C/Supt Todd G. Shean]

I don't believe that's too far-fetched. I think we have to draw that awareness component: where is that money going? It's going to fund organized crime, and organized crime is involved in a bunch of illegitimate businesses, such as drug trafficking, such as weapons. So you're correct in stating that money is going back to the organized crime group to further their business.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you.