Justice Committee on May 12th, 2009

[Jocelyn Latulippe]

We have to remember that, to simplify it, there are two types of organized crime that present a threat to Canadians. There is organized street crime, where the crimes are more violent, more obvious. However, we must not underestimate the one that represents the greater danger, in my opinion, the higher-level crime, organized crime, in particular, at the global level. This involves organizations like the Hells Angels, the Bandidos or other groups, whether it be the Cosa Nostra or global organizations. When they set up shop in Canada, these global organizations look for ways to infiltrate the legal economy to launder money, and make acquisitions. Ultimately, they acquire businesses, so they can launder money on a large scale.

The Hells Angels are an example. In recent operations, which are in fact under investigation, and in other cases that are currently before the court, we have evidence that these members use their symbol and the fact that their organization is recognized worldwide to intimidate legal businesses when they take over, for instance. In some cases, Hells Angels members introduced themselves to boards of directors simply by letting them know they were members of the Hells Angels, in order to make an acquisition or a business decision.

As well, Hells Angels members have taken over businesses by paying visits to people having problems, wearing their jacket, their patch, and our investigations clearly show this. We have testimony, we have wiretap evidence, showing takeovers accomplished by using the jackets and colours.

This factor means that these organizations that are recognized worldwide have much stronger control in Canada.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Do I have time to ask one last question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No.

Mr. Comartin, you have seven minutes.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Latulippe, Mr. Mainville.

I think there is sympathy on the committee for the idea of naming gangs. However, Mr. Bartlett talked about problems. It will be very difficult and maybe impossible. Have your police chiefs' offices done a legal analysis of the problems Mr. Bartlett talked about today?

[Jocelyn Latulippe]

We have not done a legal analysis, but you can see that it depends on the procedures, the methods used to combat organized crime, and it isn't the same in all the provinces. The possibilities vary in different people's opinions. We think it can be done in the case of major criminal organizations.

Mr. Ménard talked about three. In the case of certain other organizations I listed, biker gangs or organized crime with Italian roots, or others, it would be possible to prove the case because a lot of factors, the 42 factors, for example, are found in those organizations.

We think it is possible to prove it. We would like to stop having to do it over again all the time.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Do you know of another country that does this? Is there a country that has legislation that facilitates the battle against organized crime in this way?

[Jocelyn Latulippe]

I have not researched it in depth, but I have been told that in Italy there are rules like this and the Cosa Nostra is a banned criminal organization.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Do you think it is possible to get enough evidence to have a court or a judge decide that the Cosa Nostra will be put on a list like that?

[Jocelyn Latulippe]

If we rely on the evidence we are currently putting together about the Hells Angels, using the 42 organized crime factors among other things, we think it is.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

There are 900 gangs in Canada. Mr. Ménard mentioned three. How many will be named, a dozen or three dozen?

[Denis Mainville]

It is difficult to determine. If we are talking about street gangs that commit traditional crimes, there are maybe 20 or so. We have to remember that there are also Asian criminal groups, and Middle Eastern, that are emerging now, and that police organizations have not tackled to a large extent, but they are here and we know about them.

The intelligence services supply information to us about that. These are evolving groups, but for the ones we are most concerned with there are at least 20 or so.

[Jocelyn Latulippe]

Obviously the advent of legislation like this would do a lot to redirect our investigation targets, because this kind of measure would mean we could considerably reduce the effectiveness of these groups, which would no longer have the ability to intimidate openly and to advertise themselves. That is a major factor for us. It would also somewhat alter the list of criminal organizations. The small organizations would hesitate before attaching themselves to the higher-up organizations, because they would know they would become targets.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Bartlett, on the same question, are there any other countries in the world or jurisdictions—I'm looking in particular for jurisdictions that have a bill of rights or charter somewhat similar to ours—where this has been attempted, even if it's not successful?

[William Bartlett]

In civil law countries—France, Italy—there has been some use of that kind of approach, although their systems are quite different. I don't know of any common law jurisdiction that has done a listing process. Australia has used a crime commission approach. The crime commission can make certain findings, and there are some consequences that flow from the crime commission's making a finding, although they're not direct criminal matters; they're more things such as control orders and so on that can flow, similar to our section 810.01 process.

But there's no jurisdiction, I think, with the same sort of constitutional framework or charter quite like ours.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Nobody that you're aware of is attempting to do it at this point.

[William Bartlett]

There is none that I'm aware of, other than what Australia is working on, although Australia doesn't have the kind of charter of rights we have. And they're not using it for quite the sort of purpose it would serve here, which is to prove an element of a criminal offence.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Those are all the questions I have, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We'll move on to Mr. Moore, for seven minutes.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, witnesses.

We have heard some of the frustration from past witnesses about the length of time these complex criminal trials take and what is involved in proving a case. We are certainly interested in moving the justice system along in the best way possible.

But this whole concept raises some questions, and I'm looking for some answers from the panel. Sometimes you'll see—I know I do, back home—a going out of business sale. You'll have “Joe's Furniture Depot 2009 Limited”—

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Hey!

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

—or “Rob's Furniture Depot 2009 Limited”, we'll say.

One thing we hear about concerning organized crime is their ability to reinvent themselves and adapt. Is there a concern that, if we had this legislation in place whereby an organization was named, it would do what is just sufficient to reinvent itself and bring itself outside of the law, so that we would be constantly trying to pin down an organization? Is that a valid concern, that the organizations that have shown this ability to adapt would continue to do it, if they found themselves named, with whatever impositions that would bring on them? They have some of the best legal help possible. Is it a concern that they would reinvent themselves to the degree necessary to make that listing not applicable?

[William Bartlett]

Certainly, as Commander Mainville and Chief Inspector Latulippe have noted, street gangs are very fluid. They change naturally, quite aside from any efforts they might make to avoid the consequences of being on a list. Assuming you could feasibly put them on a list to start with, they would be constantly changing. Names change, personnel change, groups splinter. The “Fresh Off the Boat Gang” spawns the “Fresh Off the Boat Killers” as a rival gang, but the personnel of the gangs.... The names are known to the police, but the personnel are certainly fluid, and they change. That would certainly be a concern, in terms of whether or not the name on the list would clearly designate a group of people at any given point in time.

In addition to that, the very fluid nature that has been painted would mean that much, if not most, or if not all, in some cases, of the kind of evidence that has been discussed—and we're quite aware of the burden involved in presenting that evidence—would still have to be presented in any particular case to show that in this case the accused committed extortion, say, in connection with a group of people that constituted the organization on the list.

Commander Mainville talked about updating the leadership and so on. Well, as the leadership changes, there will always be a challenge as to whether or not the group is still the same one as the one that was designated on the list. The connection still has to be shown; that is not avoidable, in that the case still has to be made that the person committed whatever the offence was for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization. The starting point is proving that a criminal organization exists, but then the connection has to be shown. The evidence for proving both of those things is very much the same in many, if not most, cases.

So whether or not it could change itself in order to avoid the name, say, on the list, it would do so anyway just organically, because they're flexible organizations. Beyond that, there would be an issue as to whether or not the particular group in any particular case was whatever name was left on the list.

[Jocelyn Latulippe]

Organized crime, by nature, is always going to adapt to new legislative developments and police techniques, but we in the police are also able to adapt and keep on top of it.

However, I think that this kind of measure would take away high-level organized crime's tool for power, which is the tool that hurts Canadians most, the one by which these people can advertise themselves as members of organized crime or criminal organizations even though they have been recognized as such in numerous judgments, here and elsewhere in the world.

Canada has to send a clear message that it does not tolerate public advertising, and this will take away organized crime's effectiveness in some areas and put up an additional barrier to achieving its ends. So it hurts them a lot, and for the police, the burden of proof will still be there. For example, the 42 organized crime factors will still be there. But we think that this would be a major step forward.

There have also been comments that this kind of measure would mean that the criminals would no longer advertise themselves, so it will be harder for the police to identify them because they will no longer have there names and there will be no ceremonies where they can take photographs. That is useful to do, but it is not necessary. We have other ways of achieving our objectives, because a majority of criminal organizations don't advertise themselves. It is really the most dangerous ones, the most violent, that do that. Take the Italians for example, who don't necessarily do it, or other types of organized crime. So it doesn't interfere with investigations, it's just a different kind of investigation.

[Denis Mainville]

If I may, we are targeting street gang members' feeling of belonging. That feeling, regardless of the organization, sends a clear message, that being a member of a gang is not a problem. If we enacted legislation like this, clearly there would be no attraction in joining a gang, it would simply bring the problems associated with gang membership.

That is not what the street gangs want at present. They want it easy. In fact, it becomes police provocation. We think the most important factor is the public's demand to feel safe, because it is too easy for gangs to advertise themselves, and as mentioned earlier, to advertise themselves everywhere, in any place, and confront police forces whose actions are limited.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We'll move on to Mr. Murphy, five minutes.