Evidence of meeting #40 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 montreal.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Julian Sher  Investigative Journalist, As an Individual
Michel Auger  Investigative Journalist (Retired), As an Individual
Jean-Pierre Lévesque  Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Retired), As an Individual
André Noel  Journalist, As an Individual
Margaret Shaw  Sociology and Criminology, International Centre for the Prevention of Crime

8:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

I call the meeting to order.

This is the 40th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Thursday, October 22, 2009. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our study on the state of organized crime in Canada.

We're pleased to have a number of witnesses with us. First, we have Julian Sher, investigative journalist. We have Michel Auger, who is also an investigative journalist. We have Jean-Pierre Lévesque, who is with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. And we have André Noël, journalist.

Gentlemen, thank you for appearing today. We look forward to hearing what you have to say to us.

Each of you has ten minutes to present. If you require less time, that's fine; that will give us more opportunity to ask questions of you.

Mr. Sher, perhaps you could start.

8:35 a.m.

Julian Sher Investigative Journalist, As an Individual

Thank you very much. I'm going to speak in English, but I can answer questions in both languages.

I should say right at the start that except for Jean-Pierre, the rest of us are just ink-stained journalists. I don't have a badge. I don't have a law degree. All I do is I ask questions. But we do have a passport that gives us I think a unique perspective, myself and my other journalistic colleagues. We have had the opportunity to not only of course speak to police officers, but because we don't carry a badge, police officers will often tell us things that they won't tell you or won't tell their own bosses. Because I don't belong to a particular organization, RCMP people will tell me things, Vancouver police will tell me things, Montreal police will tell me things. In other words, they'll be more frank with us than they will often be among themselves. Plus of course I've had the opportunity to interview Hells Angels' members, leaders, informants, people under witness protection, victims. The advantage we have is our passport gives us an ability to go places you can't go, and even the police can't go. I hope maybe we can contribute to some of your understanding.

What I actually wanted to focus on, and I'll leave some of the specifics of organized crime to some of my colleagues, is the whole importance of image and perception. It may sound like a strange focus, but while the human cost of crime is very real if you look at the bodies we had here in Montreal, the continuing gang violence in Vancouver, the attacks in Winnipeg, much of the fight against organized crime I think is about image and perception. Organized crime is strong because of its ability to strike terror, and the response has to be strong in the same way, by striking back an image of resilience.

Let me deal with three quick issues about that.

First of all, there's our image abroad. Canada has a very strong image as a kind of a peaceful, law and order country, except when it comes to organized crime. In the last few weeks I've been interviewed by BBC, Australian TV, American papers; they're catching on to the fact that Canada is in many ways, even though our homicide or murder rate is quite low, often seen internationally as a big centre of organized crime, notably because of the Hells Angels, but because of other gangs as well.

Then look at the public's mind. What's the public's perception of organized crime? I think one of the problems, and to some degree the media is responsible for this, is that usually organized crime is ignored in the headlines. What concerns the public quite rightly is when a girl gets kidnapped or when there's a bank robbery. In other words, you don't see headlines in the paper that say a thousand kilos of coke arrived safely today in the ports of Montreal, which goes on every day. Organized crime, because it is under the radar, most of the time--except right now in Montreal's election--doesn't make it into the newspapers, so the public is not largely concerned about organized crime. They don't see the connection between organized crime and the daily attacks, the drug dealers, the B and Es, the break-and-enters. That's a problem, the public's perception of organized crime.

Finally, I want to briefly mention, on this issue of the importance of image, how the bad guys look at it. I have talked to enough Hells Angels leaders and other criminals, and obviously for them money and the terror they strike is important, but you'd be surprised how important the question of power and image also is. It is crucial. The “death head” patch the Hells Angels wear was recognized in Canada's courts of law in the first successful anti-gang prosecution we had in Ontario. It has been recognized as a weapon. The patch itself, the symbol, the image, was seen as enough of a weapon so that when two Hells Angels, with a third person, went to try to extort a man, they were convicted on Canada's anti-gang legislation with Madam Michelle Fuerst. She described the jacket they were wearing as the weapon of intimidation, because they didn't have anything. They didn't have a gun. It was the image of the Hells Angels that was the weapon. That's what's so important to understand about organized crime: it's the ability to strike terror just because of an image.

The second point, then, is based on that to some degree: how do we fight organized crime? One of the things I want to address is the importance of understanding the adjective, that it's “organized”. Everybody understands that it's crime, but it's important to understand that it's “organized crime”. Police too frequently are not. I was talking to Joe Comartin just before, and I'm sure you are aware of some of the sad costs of some of the police infighting across the country. We have stories--Michel and others can tell you stories--of huge fighting between the SQ, the Montreal police, and the RCMP. In Vancouver many cases were completely lost because of struggles and competition between the police.

After several years of covering this, I've come to the conclusion that there are not a thousand and one ways to take on organized crime, there's only one. There's only one way, and that's infiltration and intelligence. Occasionally you'll get a Hells Angels guy who forgets his gun in his carry-on briefcase in Vancouver, but short of that, the only successful prosecutions we've had were because of infiltration and intelligence. Infiltration can be agents, spies, wiretaps....

You have to gather the intelligence, and you can't do that unless you have organized strike forces, unless you have police who are specially trained. It can't just be homicide cops. They don't send homicide cops to deal with domestic abuse, you don't send rape counselling police to deal with bank robberies, and you can't send regular cops to deal with organized crime. You need specialized squads.

Where we have specialized squads, as we have here in Montreal, or units like the BEU--the biker enforcement unit in Ontario--or some of the groups that they had in Vancouver, we have successes, but when they dismantle those groups or when they don't bring everybody together, we don't get successful prosecutions.

You absolutely need specialized strike forces, police that are trained, but you also need specialized prosecutors. Quebec led the example, and they sent their prosecutors across the country, because what was happening in the rest of the country was that although they had finally set up specialized squads that were doing good investigations, they were doing things like dumping 80 boxes of their investigation onto some hapless prosecutor who had no training in organized crime, as one of the stories in The Globe and Mail pointed out. Only when they set up specialized bureaus of prosecutors who understood organized crime could they take it on. You need specialized strike squads of police and of prosecutors.

The last thing I want to talk about is the long but sometimes weak arm of the law. First, let's look at the organized crime law, what we call the gang law. There have been quite a few defeats recently in court, as I'm sure you're aware, especially in British Columbia. Operation Pandora, which was a very good investigation, so far has not scored major successes in courts.

It's clear that the anti-gang law is complicated and cumbersome. I don't want to go into details about some possible reforms. We could talk about that later, although one of the things the police are looking at is the whole idea of simpler targets. In other words, we'll see what happens with Quebec. As you know, they've charged over 100 Hells Angels. That might be a little unmanageable. Is there a way to go after simpler targets?

The point I want to raise briefly here about the gang law goes back to my point about image. Sure, it's important to convict these guys and send them to jail if they're guilty, but the very act of prosecuting them and forcing them to go trial, even if the trials don't often work, goes to their image. It's the image that's important.

First of all, it disrupts them terribly. In the two or three years that the Hells Angels were recently facing immense prosecution in Vancouver, their activity declined. Unfortunately it led to a rise in street gangs, but the Hells Angels were paralyzed by that. In Quebec we're seeing the same thing.

The point I'm trying to make is, sure, you want trials to be successful, but the very act of prosecuting them and going after them is important. It goes back to the image. It's telling organized crime, “You are not impregnable. We can take you down.” It's very important to keep that point about image. The one thing the Hells Angels in particular hate more than anything else is being prosecuted under Canada's anti-gang law.

Second, let's be creative and think outside the box. We all know about the anti-gang trials, but you've got to look at some creative ways some jurisdictions are going. Saskatchewan has an anti-patch law, and so do many other jurisdictions. In other words, you can't wear your gang colours in a restaurant. It's actually being appealed by the gangs, but it's a great way of using municipal or provincial laws to try to curb the activities of gangs.

Manitoba and other jurisdictions have anti-bunker laws, preventing you from turning your clubhouse into a fortress. Vancouver has a great program going on. There's a private trespass law in Canada, so the bar owners and restaurants sign up ahead of time with police, saying they agree they don't want known members of organized crime in their restaurants, and sometimes they list the names of the gangs or the names of individuals. Then if the police walk in and see a known Hells Angels member or other gang member, they can say “You have to leave”, and the guy has to leave because it's a private restaurant and there's a private trespass law.

In fact one Quebec gang member was arrested because he was sitting there at the bar, as he does in Montreal. The cop came over and said “You have to leave”, and he said, “What are you talking about?” He said “We have a private trespass law”. The Hells Angels guy did not believe him because it doesn't exist in Montreal, and he was arrested.

It does exist in Vancouver, so the HA can't party in downtown Vancouver. It's a simple law, not changing anything that exists, and it's working well. So think outside the box.

Finally, rely on the courage of ordinary people. I've had the honour to meet some pretty brave people.

We all know of Danny Desrochers, the 11-year-old boy who was killed. His mom, who sadly passed away, contributed to the passing of the anti-gang laws by being so active and outspoken. I met a Quebec City bus driver who literally had the neighbours from hell. He woke up one day and found a Hells Angels bunker had been set up right next to him in Saint-Nicolas, across the street from Quebec City. He organized a circle of neighbours and protested against the bunker, and they eventually got it closed down.

Those are my basic conclusions. Fighting organized crime is like fighting bad weeds: they're going to keep coming back. You don't pave over the garden; you simply keep weeding and weeding the garden. It's important to send a message to communities that we don't want them in our neighbourhoods, and here are different ways we can fight.

Thank you.

8:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you.

We move on to Monsieur Auger. You have ten minutes to present.

8:45 a.m.

Michel Auger Investigative Journalist (Retired), As an Individual

Thank you.

I'll make my presentation in French, because my English is pretty bad. I learned it in Shawinigan.

I began my career as a journalist in Shawinigan in 1964. So I've been a journalist for 45 years. I've worked at La Presse, Le Journal de Montréal and on the program The Fifth Estate for five years. Somewhat as Julian was saying earlier, my experience as a journalist has led me to associate with a lot of police officers and criminals.

I'm speaking to you this morning as a victim of organized crime. On September 13, 2000, nine years ago, I was attacked by a member of the Hells Angels organization. He put six bullets in my back. Fortunately, the doctors saved my life and I was able to go back to work. That experience enabled me to meet a lot of victims of organized crime and people who helped those victims.

I've observed that citizens in general have a simplistic idea of organized crime. They think that, through the law, we'll easily resolve all that and that it will be done quickly. Today, the Government of Quebec is announcing the creation of a special construction industry corruption squad, and people imagine that that will solve all the problems quickly.

As regards criminal bikers, Julian earlier referred to the 11-year-old boy who was killed in 1995. Quebec's minister of public security at the time, Mr. Ménard, ordered the establishment of the Carcajou squad. It combined the Sûreté du Québec, the Montreal Police Department and the RCMP to combat the criminals. That squad was soon able to make a major effort because there were a lot of informers and police officers had a lot of information. Rather than continue individually, they joined forces. In 2001, part of the problem was solved with the arrest of between 200 and 300 persons in Quebec, including about 20 dues-paying members of the Hells Angels.

8:45 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

It was 321 persons.

8:45 a.m.

Investigative Journalist (Retired), As an Individual

Michel Auger

It was 320 including about 15 Hells Angels. That took 15 years. In the spring, they continued the police investigations and charged all the members of the Hells Angels in Quebec, except two. Those two weren't charged because, at the time of the biker war, they were among those that the Hells Angels' enemies wanted to kill. So they were eventual victims. When the biker war was over in 2000, previous enemies became members of the Hells Angels. That's how the war ended.

Today, if we want to put more people in prison, we're realizing that more contracts could well be awarded to the mafia. We've recently seen, in all the debates in Quebec, that considerable collusion and corruption have been involved in the granting of public contracts. That world is hard to hit because it consists of a small group of individuals who work among themselves and engage in conspiracies. There aren't really a lot of them, and few police officers know the situation. By wanting to build new prisons and put more people in them, there is a risk we will help organized crime make even more profits rather than hurt it.

Operation Colisée clearly illustrates the problem involved in conducting effective police investigations. That investigation into the Montreal mafia was conducted by the RCMP over a number of years. Approximately $55 million was invested in the main investigation and preliminary investigations. A lot of individuals were charged under the antigang measures of the Criminal Code, but the head of the mafia was released from prison two days after being convicted. He was supposed to be at death's door, but he left prison at a jog. All the others were given relatively minor sentences. A little money was seized. The antigang provisions of the Criminal Code were used by criminal lawyers to negotiate sentences and, in particular, to avoid the seizure of buildings and residences. Ultimately, the overall impact that that $55 million investigation had on organized crime was very minor.

It was said—that was in 2003, I believe—that the mafia had been decapitated by the RCMP. However, drug trafficking didn't decline. Last spring, the Hells Angels were put in prison, but 24 of them are still at large. Drug prices haven't risen in Montreal, in Quebec in general or within Canada. The criminals will be released from prison after serving one-sixth of their sentence. It's thought that this isn't a serious crime. The corrections people allow a criminal convicted of drug trafficking to be released after serving one-sixth of his sentence. In short, there's no criminal deterrent aspect.

In the United States, the trials are much quicker, the sentences much more effective, and, the moment a group is concerned by an investigation and the police make arrests, criminals rush to become informants so they can settle their sentences as soon as possible. That happened in the case of our well-known Toronto publisher, Conrad Black. The case was solved thanks to an informant, an associate of Black's who came to the table. That's how the Americans operate and they put a lot of effort into it. As regards American structures, the RICO Act has been in effect since 1968 and works regularly. The trials are much shorter.

In Canada, ordinary citizens unfortunately don't often have an opportunity to go through the courts because it costs a fortune. Criminals have lawyers that they pay well, in cash.

Operation Colisée, for example, lasted five or six years, including the preparations. Since the police structure of the RCMP is centralized, there were five or six commanders. These are Ottawa bureaucrats who decide how things will operate. The decisions are not always bad, but these people are very far from the street and from the investigations. In addition, as a result of the police structure of the RCMP, a police officer has to be a generalist, that is to say good in all fields, in order to move up through the ranks.

However, in the fight against organized crime, it is a long-term effort that makes it possible to understand the operation of structures involving, for example, criminals of Sicilian origin who lived in farming communities, in villages, and who were able to import that type of structure to Montreal. Some get very effectively involved in drug trafficking, others in the upper levels of the construction industry, still others in political party financing.

Ultimately, we have an organized crime structure that is highly integrated and highly efficient. In addition, unfortunately, we're attacking situations that are likely to please the public, without however necessarily attacking organized crime effectively.

I'll answer questions later. I'll add others shortly.

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Jean-Pierre Lévesque for ten minutes.

8:55 a.m.

Jean-Pierre Lévesque Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Retired), As an Individual

Good morning. This will be in French as well.

Thank you for your invitation.

I am an RCMP officer and have been retired since 2006. In the last 15 years that I spent with the RCMP, I was assigned to the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada as coordinator of issues related to criminal biker gangs. Today, you could use the term “to the Hells Angels gang” since they've eliminated all the competition. My purpose was to facilitate and promote the exchange of intelligence between national and international law enforcement agencies. Here I'm not talking just about police departments, but also about correctional services, immigration services, customs services at the time and so on.

In the early 1990s, we witnessed the transformation of a small criminal enterprise into a multinational organized criminal organization that, like the mafia today, took control of certain construction sectors using the same methods as for their drug trafficking: intimidation and violence—I think André Noël will be talking about that. At the time, cooperation and coordination were minimal between police departments. At the start of the biker war, a national strategy was put in place, and the Carcajou squad was created at that time. That national strategy is still around and working well.

Let's look at a few details on how it works. It now provides access to data bases to squads specialized in the fight against biker gangs; it permits tactical and strategic exchanges on an ongoing basis among the various stakeholders; it permits ongoing awareness and training for members of law enforcement agencies on the importance of combining our efforts through documents, pamphlets, videos and so on; it permits the training of expert witnesses.

In 1992, the Immigration Act was amended. It was decided that, in future, any member of an organized criminal gang from outside the country would not have access to the country. At the time, we made a presentation and asked why the Hells Angels were not on that list. We ultimately convinced the authorities that they should be on it. To date, no foreign member of the Hells Angels, or even the Bandidos or Outlaws, can enter Canada with or without a criminal record. They are banned.

There's also the LAW Group, the Legal Advisor War Group, which the prosecutors from across the country responsible for Hells Angels cases joined. France Charbonneau was one of its leaders at the time. The members exchanged advice, as prosecutors were really reluctant to handle Hells Angels cases as a result of intimidation and so on.

So I think that this area of police work is doing well at this time.

My other point concerns the nonsensical fact that members of a criminal organization are allowed to walk the streets of Canada with their business cards displayed on their backs. This has three benefits for them. It helps, first, maintain the intimidation level, second, maintain the terror level and, third, even more important, secure the absolute trust of other criminals—100%—which facilitates their criminal activities, as is currently the case in the construction industry. In Hamburg, Germany, it has been prohibited to display the logo or name of the Hells Angels in public, under threat of imprisonment, since 1986.

We know that the government could, by simply issuing a government order, decide that a group is a terrorist organization and seize all their property. Why then aren't we doing it with the Hells Angels? It seems so complicated! Some hide behind the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as in 1995, when the first antigang law was passed, waving the spectre of the unconstitutional nature of that act. And yet, that act is doing very well.

I think that, over the long term, the Hells Angels are a greater threat to Canadian citizens than Al-Qaeda or the Tamil Tigers, with their 200 deaths, their 20 innocent people killed, their prison guards killed and their massive involvement in drug trafficking, whether it be through secret labs, hydroponic grow-ops or cocaine imports.

Another option would be to make a judicial declaration proving that the organization is essentially dedicated to crime. Since 2005 in Ontario, police officers have provided this evidence in court on four or five occasions, and it was allowed every time. In 2005, when this kind of situation arose for the first time and Judge Fuerst decided that the Hells Angels represented a criminal organization, they appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Last June, the Court of Appeal held that Judge Fuerst's decision was impeccable. The Hells Angels decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. If they lose in the Supreme Court, will we finally ban them, or will we still allow them to walk around with their business cards?

Two things make it possible to control organized crime more effectively. First, when someone is convicted of gangsterism, why have him serve only 50% of his sentence? Why have the slightest scruple? Why release him after he has served two-thirds of his sentence? Is that for the purpose of reintegration? That's unrealistic. There's no such thing in that world. Based on my 15 years' experience and my knowledge of the Hells Angels, I cannot remember the name of a single Hells Angel who became an honest citizen after serving time in prison.

When you talk about inflicting a heavy blow, the second most important thing is obviously money. It's true that some laws have never been tested in court and have always produced mixed results. I believe Michel talked about that. Mafia members leave prison with a lot of money in their pockets, which enables them to finance those lower down. If their pockets were empty, they would be much more vulnerable and would have trouble regaining their place in that environment.

Currently, an investigation makes it possible to establish profits and allows tax authorities to issue notices of assessment to those criminals. Deals are always struck and criminals constantly pay without any problem and at a discount, with an envelope full of cash or by personal cheque.

We're talking about gangsterism, and here's my suggestion. Why not require these individuals to hand over to the state all their profits, which can then be assessed, for example, at $10 million over the four years of an investigation? If they refuse to do so, they stay in prison until the fine has been paid, and they can't declare bankruptcy. If their term is served, but they still owe money, they would stay in prison.

We say we want to have an impact on the next generation and to discourage it; I think that's the most important thing to do. Both street gangs and other groups wait until they know their sentence and the number of assets seized before determining whether it's worth the trouble for them to get involved.

I think the key to success is in your hands. You can advise the politicians and the people at Justice Canada, who will decide how to change the laws. That's the most important thing to do.

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Monsieur Noël, for ten minutes.

9 a.m.

André Noel Journalist, As an Individual

Good morning. I'm going to speak to you in French as well.

I would like to tell you some brief stories and name some names, but I want to ensure there is immunity here and that I won't be sued for what I'm going to tell you because I'm already involved in a number of proceedings. I've been a journalist with La Presse for 25 years.

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

I just wanted to assure you that you do have immunity when you are testifying before committee.

9 a.m.

Journalist, As an Individual

André Noel

Saputo has filed a $24 million suit against me, another—

9 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Mr. Chairman, pardon me for interrupting you, but I'm not sure you're thinking of the same kind of proceedings as Mr. Noël. He is not concerned at all about being prosecuted for breaking the law in one way or another. So he obviously has immunity from prosecution. He wouldn't need it because he wouldn't be breaking the law. But I think what concerns Mr. Noël is that he might be sued for naming names.

Do I understand you correctly?

9 a.m.

Journalist, As an Individual

9 a.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Can he give us those names in camera? His testimony could be heard in camera. There aren't a lot of people here to report his remarks, but some people listening to us could—

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

Madam Jennings.

9:05 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

I think Mr. Noël's concerns are absolutely justified. Parliamentary immunity wouldn't apply, if he gave names of people in the context of a public meeting. I agree with my colleague Mr. Ménard. We should have an in camera meeting for Mr. Noël's testimony. In that way, the disclosure of names would be done in camera and no one has access to the transcript. All members, all staff and all persons here present are required to respect the confidentiality of everything said during an in camera meeting. Anyone violating that confidentiality would be guilty of contempt of Parliament and liable to criminal prosecution.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

That's a good suggestion.

Is it the will of the committee to go in camera for this witness?

9:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

9:51 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

9:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Ed Fast

We'll start another round of questions. Let's limit it to five minutes for the question and answer.

Ms. Jennings.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Thank you.

I'd like to go back to a subject that you all addressed. That's the fact that, contrary to what is perhaps happening in other countries, members of organized crime like the Hells Angels, for example, can walk the streets, in public, with impunity in most places in Canada. It's not illegal for them to display their symbols, which are symbols of intimidation.

You mentioned, I believe it was Mr. Sher who did so—examples of certain cities, in Saskatchewan, Vancouver, where municipal authorities have adopted by-laws enabling police officers to expel Hells Angels members, for example. If they resist, then there are reasonable grounds to proceed with an arrest for obstructing a police officer. Do you think that practice should be spread?

Then someone talked about a federal government order. I would like to hear a little more on that subject.

I'm not just speaking to Mr. Sher. If the other witnesses want to add something, I invite them to do so.

9:50 a.m.

Investigative Journalist, As an Individual

Julian Sher

I think you have to make a distinction between banning or making a group illegal and finding different ways to curtail their public activities. As far as I know, there have been attempts to do that, as reported in today's newspapers. In Australia they're still debating criminalizing bikie gangs, as they call them, but they're having some constitutional issues. I believe it was tried in a couple of European countries without much success.

9:50 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

I think I must have misspoken. I'm not talking about banning the organization itself; I'm talking about this symbol of intimidation.

9:50 a.m.

Investigative Journalist, As an Individual

Julian Sher

Canada has been leading the pack in the public display of gang issues. In that sense, quite a few provinces and municipalities have what are called anti-patch laws. Right now the Saskatchewan one is going before a court of appeal, precisely because the Hells Angels argue that it is unconstitutional. So we'll see how those laws go. I think overall they'll be supported and sustained, because municipalities, provinces, and other jurisdictions have a right.

It goes back to what I was saying about thinking outside the box. Those kinds of laws can be very effective. For one thing--excuse my language--they piss off the bikers immensely, but they actually have a very strong effect.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I don't think banning is very effective, and I can explain why later if you like. But when most gang members are arrested and charged, even if they haven't yet been convicted, the stipulations stop them from associating. It's called non-association. That's also very effective, because when you arrest a hundred Hells Angels members and suddenly they can't talk to each other or anybody connected with them, you effectively paralyze the gang, at least for the period of the trial. So there are creative ways like that in which Canada has led the way, and perhaps the federal government could coordinate it in a stronger fashion.