Evidence of meeting #14 for Justice and Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was organizations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Co-Chair, Organized Crime Committee and Chief Inspector, Sûreté du Québec, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
It is difficult to say, but you should know that the practice is being used more and more. We see an astounding number of facilitators involved in high-level organized crime, and we know in advance that we cannot touch them.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Because they control a number of businesses that are very different, with all due respect to my learned colleague Mr. Petit. It is not only construction. It is like an octopus, it has tentacles everywhere.
4:50 p.m.
Co-Chair, Organized Crime Committee and Chief Inspector, Sûreté du Québec, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
The information and intelligence that we have at the moment show that they get involved anywhere there is easy money to be made, anywhere they can get a monopoly, anywhere there are opportunities.
Investments from overseas have become more difficult, perhaps; they are less flexible and they do not let members of organized crime get white-collar status, whereas domestic investments give them the status of investors and businessmen.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all the witnesses.
I have a couple of technical questions regarding the establishment of gang activity and organized crime. I'm going to direct them to Mr. Richmond. I have three questions.
Very quickly, could you walk me through what you have to establish for a court to be convinced that it is organized crime or gang activity? Two, is the test a balance of probability, or is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Third, why do you have to do it every time? Will the courts not take judicial notice of the existence of the particular criminal organization such as the Bandidos or Hells Angels?
4:50 p.m.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, Organized Crime Prosecutions Bureau, Department of Justice (Quebec)
The first part of your question is, why do we make the effort to prove that it's a criminal organization?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
No. Could you walk me very briefly through the process of what you have to establish. What is the court looking for?
4:50 p.m.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, Organized Crime Prosecutions Bureau, Department of Justice (Quebec)
A criminal organization is defined in the Criminal Code. Basically, it's an organization of three or more people that has as one of its main functions, purposes, or activities the commission of crimes for the purpose of enrichment. In other words, money-making crimes as opposed to terrorist crimes that are for religious or political purposes. On proving the existence of the organization, the easiest way to do it is by having someone from within the organization testify. If you can get that type of witness, an insider, to testify to say this is what the organization is called, and these are the members and the activities, then it's a lot easier. But in many cases we don't have a witness like that as they're difficult to get, and so we have to use circumstantial evidence such as wiretapping, physical surveillance, and transactions with police posing as agents making transactions. It can be very long and difficult. But those are the ways we prove that.
What was the second question?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
On the test, is it a preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt?
4:50 p.m.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, Organized Crime Prosecutions Bureau, Department of Justice (Quebec)
It's beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, you asked why we have to prove it every time.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Will the courts not take judicial notice of the existence of an organized crime group?
4:50 p.m.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, Organized Crime Prosecutions Bureau, Department of Justice (Quebec)
At one time there was some hope, particularly in Ontario. A few years back, I think in 2004 or 2005, Ontario got the first provincial conviction for gangsterism in the Lindsay-Bonner case in Barrie through Justice Michelle Fuerst of the Superior Court. After that major conviction established that the Hells Angels were a criminal organization across Canada, Ontario prosecutors hoped they could take advantage of the decision and ask courts to take judicial note of that fact in future cases. However, they were not successful, except perhaps at bail hearings, where hearsay evidence is allowed. At the trial level, courts across Canada are requiring us to make the evidence anew.
It was stated initially by Justice Fuerst in the Ontario Superior Court that her decision applied only to this particular case, Lindsay and Bonner. She said it in her decision. Later on, that was taken up by a judge in Vancouver in the case of Ricky Ciarniello, another Hells Angels member. More recently, the Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that these precedents cannot be the subject of judicial note and that we'll have to make that evidence anew in each case. That's why I state that we have to make this evidence again every time.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Is Manitoba the only appellate court to have made such a finding?
4:55 p.m.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, Organized Crime Prosecutions Bureau, Department of Justice (Quebec)
To my knowledge, yes, it is.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, Organized Crime Prosecutions Bureau, Department of Justice (Quebec)
Yes. It was Kirton.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Thank you.
We're at the end of our time. I want to thank all our witnesses for appearing here. Your testimony has been helpful.
We're now going to ask everybody to clear the room, except for those who are entitled to stay in camera. We'll be moving in camera in the next five minutes.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
[Public proceedings resume]
(On clause 1)
6 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Is it possible for the officials to explain to us quickly what each clause means? Then, if there is no problem, we can pass them one after another. Could they just quickly remind us of the intent of each clause? After that, if there are no amendments, you could ask for a vote, but I would just like to be quickly reminded of the intent of each of the 25 clauses.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Why would we go over each clause if there's agreement on some of them? We don't need an explanation of each clause. I've never heard of that being done. I would rather group the ones we agree on, instead of sitting here as each clause is explained. You've already read the bill.
You've never read the bill?
6:05 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
It can be done quickly, but I want to make sure that we understand what we are voting on.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
The normal procedure, and certainly my experience at other committees, is that if there is a question on a particular clause, a member can ask Justice staff. Other than that, I don't think we go through an explanation of each clause when we go through a bill.