Justice Committee on April 30th, 2009

[A/Commr Al Macintyre]

I'll defer on the lawful access and some of those issues, because we do know that you've received presentations from Cabana and others like that.

For example, we'll take a $2 million helicopter and put a FLIR unit on the bottom of it to search for missing persons and track suspects, but it'll also detect if there's a marijuana grow-op. Is that a reasonable expectation of privacy? What happens around all of that?

We're just overwhelmed with process related to that, those sorts of issues such as a hand-held device as you drive down the road to scan a basement to watch for heat leaking between the top and bottom of a residence, or a police dog being used to search while walking past baggage at a bus stop or a school. It just seems that for everything we try to train up for in terms of expectations from the public, we receive process, either through the courts or through directives, that basically slow us down. There's a lot of frustration--there are no two ways about it--within law enforcement. I don't mean just in our force, I mean right across the board.

As far as the other issues go, I'll perhaps defer to Doug, if he doesn't mind, to talk about those processes. It is a big deal for us. Certainly we all belong to subcommittees on organized crime of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. It absolutely consumes our time.

On the issue of disclosure, we had a major homicide case, and for three years we had 18 people working on nothing but disclosure on the case. Can you imagine if we were able to take those resources and reduce them? We accept that disclosure is required, but to the extent that disclosure was called for on that particular case, the tentacles went so far that it was an exercise. I'm sure nobody looked at what we were disclosing.

I think he could also speak on that large outlaw motorcycle gang until the cows come home, but I don't think you have the time for that. I'll defer on the others.

[Supt Doug Kiloh]

Specifically with part 6 of the Criminal Code and the use of wiretap legislation, it's overly bureaucratic, as Inspector Shinkaruk mentioned earlier. We will conduct a 1,000-page affidavit to get authorization to listen to someone, to go into their house and cars to place bugs. It's all well documented and supported. In a civil case, for example, the balance of probability is that they're guilty. It doesn't meet a criminal test.

If we get into that same house and find something, we will have to reproduce all of the warrant, all of the information, and all of our investigation to get a secondary warrant to find out where that bank account is. We'll get the bank account number in that warrant, but we have to base it on the first one, and so it's fruit of the poisoned tree. Why can't we get a simple amendment based on our first warrant, which was lawful and which the court accepted at the highest level? We're allowed to go into someone's home and put audio devices in there. Why can't we get, with a sequential warrant, one, two, or ten pages and do it?

To give an example, EPARAGON was mentioned earlier. We had an investigation in Canada where we did over 220 warrant applications, judicial applications, and part 6 applications. They were each massive documents on their own. We were referring to hundreds of thousands of intercepts, activities, and surveillance reports with thousands of man-hours.

The United States ran a parallel investigation, as did Australia. In Australia they are serving time. In the United States they are serving time. They both operated with judicial authority. They went to the courts 12 times to our 220. There's a prime example of the modernization and the bureaucratic difficulties. Also, to do that, it has to be letter-perfect to the relevance, to the courts. We have to have it letter-perfect, so it takes us hundreds and hundreds of hours to develop those and ensure that they're correct before we go into court. We still make mistakes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

I will move on to Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all of you for coming here today.

I can tell you that as a member of Parliament, it's extremely valuable for us to hear from you what you think we should be doing. As a member of Parliament from North Vancouver in the Lower Mainland, I can tell you that I am very concerned about the increase in gang crime in the Lower Mainland. Many of my constituents are as well. I have many young families, as well as seniors, in my riding who are concerned. I can tell you that North Vancouver is not immune to gang crime. We've had targeted hits in North Vancouver in the last 12 months.

Tackling crime is and has been a major priority for our federal government. Do you agree with these significant actions that we have been taking in this regard over the last few years?

Perhaps Mr. MacRae could start.

[C/Supt Fraser MacRae]

Without trying to dodge the question, could I ask if you could be more specific on which areas you'd like me to comment upon?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

For example, recently we announced the elimination of the credit for time served.

[C/Supt Fraser MacRae]

Concerning the two-for-one, I was at that announcement, by the way. It was at Surrey.

And I should mention as well that I spent seven years as a police officer in North Vancouver, and the streets were really safe when I was there.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

You should go back.

[C/Supt Fraser MacRae]

I haven't been there since 2001.

I think the best thing about the two-for-one issue and changing it to one-to-one and the 1.1 is that I think it will provide greater clarity for the general public regarding what the sentence actually is for the person who ends up being convicted. And if there is greater clarity for the Canadian public, I think there is resulting increased confidence in the criminal justice system. So if that's the net impact of that, I think that's great.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Anybody else? Mr. Logan, do you have a comment?

[Dr. Matt Logan]

I took two years out of my career and went to jail as a psychologist for CSC, and I'll tell you that the two-for-one is a scam. The people who are pulling the two-for-ones are clogging the court system and just backing it up even further. So I was extremely gratified to see the two-for-one disappear.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

Somebody had mentioned that diversification is key to the longevity of a criminal organization. Obviously we've spoken today about drugs as being a big part of a criminal organization, along with prostitution and property crime. What is next?

[Insp Brad Desmarais]

Gary Shinkaruk and I had a conversation about this yesterday, as a matter of fact. One of the things we're facing in today's complex criminal world is that these individuals are very, very ably advised by professionals and people who have subject matter knowledge in various criminal enterprises or various enterprises. We talked about risk assessment, and they're doing that all the time. Whether you're a money launderer and deciding whether you're going to open a bank account in jurisdiction A using a corporation from jurisdiction B because there are various levels of secrecy, or whether you have identified a weakness in a particular province's laws with respect to how mortgages are granted, or whatever the case may be, this is always ongoing.

There is a general awareness that when they see an opportunity to make a lot of money, they sit back and say, “Well, how likely am I to go to jail?” and if the chances are they're not—which regrettably is quite frequent—then they'll exploit that opportunity.

So where it is coming next? Financial crime is always a big issue. I think it's dramatically understated in this country. I think we need to do a lot more. I touched on some of the issues we deal with, but I don't think financial crime is adequately reported in this country. And if we truly understood the damage to our economy that this type of criminal activity is wreaking, I think we would probably be as upset about that as we are about a number of other criminal enterprises.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes, Mr. Kiloh.

[Supt Doug Kiloh]

Just to add to Brad's comments, what we're finding more and more, because there are huge profits generated from proceeds of crime—and Brad, you may agree—is that in all these files we're finding a common thread. There's an accountant, there's a lawyer, and there's a criminal group with massive amounts of money. They're being told how to hide their money, how to move their money, and how to make more money with it. It is undermining all of society in the country.

And Brad, you're absolutely right that it can't be overstated how dangerous that is.

[Insp Brad Desmarais]

We've talked a lot about marijuana, and that is an issue. I can tell you that in my time as a money laundering investigator, we were watching money from the proceeds of marijuana grows travel the world through a variety of countries that allow a level of secrecy attached.

The difficulty we had was that it's not only the accounts that are secret, but it's also who owns the accounts that is secret, and the corporations and who is behind the corporations. We actually don't even know, in many cases, who is the beneficiary, because we're just seeing the money moving through these various accounts throughout the world. At the end of the day, we're not sure if the person or the corporation that holds account A in some offshore jurisdiction, or account B or account C, is the actual recipient, or if it's working its way up the chain. It's very challenging.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Mrs. Wong has made a request to ask a question. Do we have consensus here? Thank you.

Mrs. Wong, you have five minutes.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you very much, officers, for coming over.

I represent a region, Richmond, in which we have a lot of ethnic groups. Luckily, in the past we were not on the radar. It wasn't until lately. I was able to get Minister Van Loan to meet groups of school trustees, because that's where prevention is. There are many groups representing different ethnic groups, and there is the RCMP of course, and then there are the other people concerned. All those questions and challenges are further confirmed by your report.

When I meet ordinary citizens, there are quite a few things that are not 100% about drugs, because they're not concerned, and drugs don't hit the streets in some parts of my riding. However, there are two things that I think the government has recently started to look at.

One is identity theft, which is financial. It's exactly what you said. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg. We have just put in bills to really make sure that identity theft is cracked down on and that it can be dealt with.

The other is about the proceeds of crime. It has become a big business. There are businesses that thrive by buying goods procured by criminal activities. Again, we have recently put in bills to look after that.

Do you think this move would be a positive one, looking at what you have just reported?

[Insp Brad Desmarais]

I think any move towards limiting the ability of people who are profiting from crime--including the person who actually commits the crime, but also those who are profiting from ancillary profits--is very positive.

I remember speaking with someone many years ago who was a house builder. He told me that as far as he was concerned, money was the same colour whether it came from a drug trafficker or some hard-working Canadians. Any legislation directed towards educating through deterrence that you can't do that, that you can't engage in that kind of business....

It has a devastating effect. Imagine if you had a hardware store, for instance, and the guy down the street opened a hardware store, but he opened it with criminal funds. You will have many more financial pressures to deal with--for purchase of stock, probably for financing, and all the rest of it. The guy down the street won't. So it has an insidious effect across the board and--I sound like a broken record--I think it's something we ought to pay a little more attention to.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

In other words, the bills sitting in the House right now that look at these issues other than drugs would be very useful for the protection of the public?

[Insp Brad Desmarais]

Without knowing the details, generally speaking, I would say yes.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

I had another question about prevention, because I came from the education sector, and I could definitely see the trends of young people being lured into gangs. There are two things, first of all, about membership.

Right now there is no regulation saying that being a member of a gang is violating the law. Am I right to say that?

[Insp Gary Shinkaruk]

Yes.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Then preventing young people from getting into the gangs is another big issue.

Can you shed more light on those two items, Mr. Logan?