Justice Committee on April 30th, 2009

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

And I believe that our benign view of smoking pot is another major contributor to the violence. If people are buying B.C. pot, they may as well be pulling the trigger, because without exception, the gang wars are a direct result of the lucrative drug trade in B.C.

Could you please tell us more about the drug trade and the involvement of organized crime here?

[C/Supt Fraser MacRae]

Well, as I stated—and I think it's been reflected in the other comments—in my view, cannabis is the currency of organized crime. I think we are, in some ways, seeing the evolution of the proliferation of marijuana grow operations, which started off primarily in British Columbia. We've seen them migrate east and then become problems in other parts of the country. But we were ahead of the curve. And I know that later on today you'll be hearing from other delegations, more specifically Chief Len Garis from the Surrey Fire Department, who will provide information regarding administrative processes to interrupt marijuana grow operations.

In the city of Surrey in 2006, combined between the police efforts of enforcement and the administrative process, which is supported by the police, I think we interrupted 500 marijuana grow operations. So there is absolutely no doubt that while we can debate the harm of individual use—I have my own opinions on that—what can't be debated is that cannabis is a currency for organized crime.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Next we'll move to Mr. Murphy. You've got five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Witnesses, it's very interesting to have you here today, and there's so little time. I want to go through some of the comments made, just to let you know we're listening and we understand the subject.

Inspector Shinkaruk—I only know Irish and French names where I come from, sorry about that—know that we understand there has to be some tinkering, some work done on the definition of criminal organization; know that we understand that.

Inspector Stewart, I want to let you know that this afternoon there'll be a witness who, in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago, said there's nothing wrong with the parole system—we should learn from it—but that the sentencing done by judges is inappropriate, which is the exact opposite of what you said. I'll be putting your comments to him this afternoon. I don't know where it will lie, but we're getting some conflicting evidence.

Inspector Desmarais, know that we understand that the Canada Evidence Act and the code need to be looked at and revamped, as Mr. Comartin said. The exigent circumstances aspects of search warrants--that's a great idea.

I have just two questions. One is for the assistant commissioner.

Whether it's accurate or not, there's some literature that suggests that here in British Columbia, Unit E, with respect to bike units, was disbanded many years ago and the follow-up was something called CLEU. There has been some evidence this morning that it was also disbanded and it left a gap. There were allegations, I suppose, of infiltration and ineffectiveness. I guess what I'm hearing today, with all the suits here, is that you've filled the gap left by CLEU and Unit E and everything is effective and working appropriately and efficiently.

Would you care to comment on that?

[A/Commr Al MacIntyre]

Yes, certainly.

It was special E-squad, and that dates right back to when I was a young city police officer here. In the seventies special E-squad was around. And you're right that there's always been an involvement by police in outlaw motorcycle gang enforcement. It's changed names, as many sections do.

But after CLEU, the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit, was created, it ultimately changed names and became OCA, Organized Crime Agency of British Columbia, and that has changed names to the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit of British Columbia. Functionally, the work remains the same, but the names have changed. From change of government to change of mandate to change of focus, things change and evolve over time, because you are taking us back well over 30 years of time in terms of organized crime enforcement.

I'm happy with the current model today. And I'm going to be a lot happier in about a month from now when they all come under one roof, one organizational structure, which will be referred to as the British Columbia Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit. That'll have a total of about 350 organized crime investigators, analysts, and support staff working under one roof, under one brain, with one focus: on organized crime in British Columbia.

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

How much time is left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Go ahead; you have a couple of minutes.

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

I also know that the Attorney General for British Columbia came forward to Ottawa in a meeting and made it very clear that there are some other reforms we're going to be pushing the government on, with respect to wiretap evidence and with respect to disclosure and Stinchcombe. That can be dealt with in the Criminal Code. Just because it is a law case—and I am a lawyer and I don't apologize for that at all—it doesn't mean you can't change it by legislation. That's what we are here for.

I have a final question. I will call it the profiling, Mr. Logan. You're retired and I'll call you Mr. Logan.

I'm really interested in what you're talking about. I probably don't have a lot of time to go into it. I have kids in school. What do you do with the 5% and 6% of the kids who you can sort of figure out are going to be disposed to criminal activity?

You sort of said we know that, but what do you do with them? They are in grade three.

[Dr. Matt Logan]

Yes, early intervention. First of all, teachers in some countries are trained to look for earmarks of violent or disruptive behaviour. Then the second step is with mothers. The third step is actually an in-home observation process. So there is a three-part sequence people move through in order to basically earmark the person for treatment, for early intervention, for all kinds of different things that bring out the strengths of the child and move them in a direction that is away from the antisocial path.

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

Do you certainly feel there should be a lot more resources toward that?

[Dr. Matt Logan]

Absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Moving on to Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would have two short questions to put to our witnesses. If I remember correctly, during the 39th parliament, we had begun our work studying section 25. I had missed that, but I did not believe that it was that difficult to obtain... In the end, it is a form of immunity and it helps you infiltrate, when you are forced to do certain things that would be considered to be illegal, and you appear... I will not use your name, just your first name. Gary, you seem to be saying that there is a difficulty here. I would like you to explain this to us again.

I would then like to come back to the issue of psychopaths. I will mention no names, but I would ask for explanations from you.

[Insp Gary Shinkaruk]

Subsection 25(1) started out as Bill C-24 and it was passed several years ago. I believe in our investigation we were the first ones to use it nationally. It gave us the ability to do things we needed to do that, quite frankly, we had been doing anyway for years.The example I used was about breaking into somebody's car to put a lawful, authorized by a court, device into it. By the letter of the law, we may have been breaking the law in certain instances. So that just gave us the ability to be exempt from prosecution in those instances.

Under the CDSA, we also have the ability to partake in aspects of drug investigations where we would traffic drugs for the greater good, and again, it would allow us to be exempt from prosecution. It does not give us immunity. It is just that we're exempt from prosecution in those instances.

It is very stringent in our organization. You have to go on a course. You have to get prior approval from our Ottawa headquarters to do it, and we have to report on it immediately. I believe every two years Parliament reviews to say this is a good police technique.

I am not sure if that answers your question.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

That is very good.

Before moving on to the matter of psychopaths and antisocial people, I would like to come back to the following matter. If I understood correctly, the reason why, as a police force, you are having difficulty holding mega-trials is not so much federal legislation, but rather inadequate funding for the offices of your attorneys general. Would it be correct to say that, from a government perspective, this is not something that can be resolved?

I will refrain from asking you if you believe that Gordon Campbell will be reelected. I am from elsewhere, and I therefore will not put that question to you.

I do not believe that we would be able to intervene under a federal government perspective. Would I be correct in saying that the first obstacle is a lack of resources?

[Insp Gary Shinkaruk]

Perhaps I'll start.

As far as the mega-trials nationally are concerned, both Superintendent Kiloh and I have in the past attended national forums led by prosecution services throughout each province. In about three weeks, I believe, we're going to the next one, which is being held in Manitoba. The previous one was held in Montreal, Quebec, last year.

The heads of each provincial prosecution unit attend, as well as police officers like Superintendent Kiloh and me, and the general frustration throughout the entire room is national. There's a national need. The idea of having this workforce and this committee is to change a lot of the legislation, to figure out how to do it.

I do believe that there are national things that need to be done, not on the mega-trials, but, as an example, on the precursors. We get tonnes of precursors in this country, legally allowed, and these precursors are absolute gold in the States. For a $25,000 barrel of ephedrine, you can get $250,000. That's a huge profit. Precursors are legally in this area by the tonne, and they get across to the States.

Getting back to the mega-trial issue, certainly in B.C. we struggle more than any other province, I think, but I know that a couple of years ago the Manitoba justice department did a comprehensive Canada-wide study on trying to get suggestions. I took our head of federal prosecution out to Quebec to meet the head of the prosecution doing the case of the 155 Hells Angels that we're talking about, just to try to discuss how that can happen in one area and not in another area. The rules each court was following were a little bit different, significantly enough that it would just not allow us that in this province, but certainly they have issues they have to address.

As I've mentioned about the two-page amendment to a wiretap, that has not been approved. It was something that Quebec went out on the plank for and that their prosecutors believed was the right thing to do, but it hasn't been tested in the Supreme Court, so certainly that is something that could be done.

Again, locally here in B.C., police don't have charge approval. I know that in Ontario there are many instances where the police will charge 100 or 130 street-level gangs, but when you actually follow it through to the end of the prosecution stage, you find that the number quickly dwindles down to a much lower number.

To answer your question, yes, we do have to address it in this province, but it certainly is a national priority.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thanks to all of you for coming here today.

In my little riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, there was a recent incident in which someone went in and shot bullets in a seniors' home in the Gibsons area. Mounties went in and subdued the shooter in a very professional manner, and there were no casualties. That wasn't reported, but it is one of thousands of incidents that happen every day. We may be clueless, but we're not without great law enforcement officers. Thank you for what you do and for being here today.

I guess the closest I came to hearing something about bills that are before the House was from you, Inspector Stewart. I tried to catch all of your words when you were saying that people who are in a heightened state of criminal violence need to be arrested, held, and charged--and I think you said detained--in order to deter them.

I would appreciate it if you could comment on these bills we have before the House, Bills C-14 and C-15, which both depend on mandatory minimum sentences. We heard earlier today from a criminologist who felt that drug-related offences weren't best responded to by mandatory minimums, that they were more a health issue. Other speakers said that what you do with drugs should be your own personal problem. Can you comment on the public safety benefits that we might attain through bringing in mandatory minimum sentences to deal with the drive-by reckless shootings and drug-related activity?

[Insp Bob Stewart]

First of all, when we're talking about an individual who's in a heightened state of violent criminal activity, I'm referring to that stage where they've been arrested and are at the bail hearing. The issue there is having a dedicated prosecutor who is intimately familiar with the case to present the facts, who understands the big picture, as it were, and who can draw the picture for the judge so the judge can make the right decision to hold that person in custody, and hold them in custody on remand.

Your question is ultimately about sentencing. Again, mandatory sentencing is probably a good idea, I think; it gives the judges some guidelines. Ultimately, it's a statement by the public of what they think of that offence and also a statement that the person needs to be put away in jail. But once they're in jail, when do they get out again? That's the issue. Mandatory sentencing, unless it is a mandatory period that must be spent in jail, really isn't as meaningful. That was my point.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

The bills would provide mandatory minimum sentences so that there would be no discretion. For instance, I'm just reading about how for the drive-by reckless shootings, there would be a mandatory minimum sentence of four years in prison with a maximum of 14 years, and then the minimum sentence would increase to five years if it was committed for a criminal organization. So some of these bills are aimed directly at criminal organizations.

Inspector MacRae, would you like to comment on the effect of these mandatory minimums?

[C/Supt Fraser MacRae]

I'm always reluctant to take away the discretion of the judge, because each circumstance is different, and each person or offender who comes before the court has their own story to tell and circumstances that have combined to get them to that point.

But I think the point we're at now, especially in relation to firearms--and this is my own personal view--is that no longer can we leave it to the discretion of the court. In relation to firearms offences, society generally, and the Canadian public, and certainly police officers are calling out for some very emphatic statement from the criminal justice system that the use of firearms, the proliferation of firearms, and, as I said in my comments, the simple possession of a firearm, should be viewed as such serious offences that they result in significant custodial time. And if that means mandatory minimum sentences, then I would be for that.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Another portion of Bill C-14 would create new offences of aggravated assault of a peace officer and assault with a weapon of a peace officer. These would be punishable by maximum penalties of 14 and 10 years, respectively.

Would any of you care to comment on those?

[Dr. Matt Logan]

Yes, I'd like to comment. I really am in support of the organized crime Bill C-14. I understand it just went through third reading. The penalties for assault causing bodily harm of 10 years and for aggravated assault of 14 years are a way of protecting our criminal justice family.

I think we have to really recognize the number of assaults that are being mounted against our criminal justice partners--or justice system participants, as the bill says--and journalists are part of that as well. I think raising those sentences, as well as requiring recognizance for two years for any intimidation of criminal justice partners or participants, is very positive. Certainly the three new offences with firearms, with the automatic degree that comes with Bill C-14, are all very important for protecting people in the criminal justice system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Monsieur LeBlanc.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations, and in particular, for your candid responses to questions from our colleagues today.

I'd like to adjust the focus a little bit. We've talked a lot about sentencing and mandatory minimums, which I certainly acknowledge have a role to play, more on the deterrence and denunciation side. Two of you, Assistant Commissioner Macintyre and Chief Superintendent MacRae, raised sort of tangential issues.

Assistant Commissioner, in your opening comments, I thought you were referring to lawful access legislation. You talked about, for example, electronic surveillance. I think you talked about certain legislative and judicial obstacles that make it difficult, or more difficult than perhaps it needs to be, for you to conduct investigations and then undertake successful prosecutions.

There's been some discussion about various investments in technologies--hyperspectral imaging sensors, for example--that have been used, for which funding was then, I think, cut off or not made available. I'm wondering if you can give us some suggestions regarding lawful access legislation and electronic surveillance, which I certainly think needs to be modernized and updated to give you the tools you need to conduct investigations against increasingly sophisticated criminal enterprises.

In the disclosure piece, you referred to obstacles, or the burden that disclosure represents, I think, particularly regarding relevance. I don't think anybody is suggesting we take away the right of an accused person to know the case against him or her, but it perhaps has become an unreasonable burden now, or it is done in a way that takes valuable resources away from policing and diverts them to photocopying and so on. I'm wondering if you could touch on that.

And then, if we have time, I want Chief Superintendent MacRae to tell us more about some of the prevention and youth at risk initiatives in your community. I found those very interesting.