Monsieur Auger.
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.
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.
9:55 a.m.
Investigative Journalist (Retired), As an Individual
This, ultimately, is a virtually pointless debate because it would be easy to ban the Hells Angels from wearing their badges in public. However, if they remove their badges, you still have to prove that they're members of a criminal organization in any case. The mafia doesn't have a uniform, and its members are very effective, even more than the Hells Angels in many cases.
Ultimately it's a waste of time to want to do that, or else do it, but let's also think of other ways to be more effective, because, if the Hells Angels can no longer wear their colours, they'll continue their criminal activities in any case. And that's the problem; it's not the public display.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I don't want my suggestions to be considered a magic solution. This is a complex problem and I think we need complex solutions that would eliminate the problem forever: that's clear. Some measures can have a positive impact without being the magic solution.
Next I wanted to ask you—
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
Yes.
So it's just that one question. Would you like a quick response?
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you.
I won't make you repeat yourself, Mr. Auger; I was going to ask you the question.
There's a difference between the mafia and the Hells Angels. The Hells Angels act in public, whereas the mafia, as far as I know, has never wanted to display itself. It's an insult to say that someone is a member of the mafia, but the movement is nevertheless terribly effective.
There is another more delicate subject on which I would like your opinion. I'm not mistaken in thinking that the main source of the criminal organizations' money is drug trafficking, and I'm told that the principal sources of income from drug trafficking are marijuana and hashish.
Do you think—some have already suggested it—that if marijuana use were legalized, that would take away a significant portion of the revenue of criminal organizations, or would that be replaced by something else that is equally effective? Would that have an effect?
9:55 a.m.
Investigative Journalist (Retired), As an Individual
Yes, criminal revenue comes in large part from drug trafficking, but it's not just marijuana. Local marijuana use in Canada is one of the problems, and marijuana exports as well. Canada has become a marijuana exporter country, but it is a major importer of heroin, cocaine and other chemicals.
Personally, I've always thought that legislation would have little impact on the crime world. The only effect would be to prevent a group of minor users from having a criminal record, which would be a good thing. As for the impact on organized crime, I don't think it would be major. The problem of drug trafficking is that they have a lot of cash—which I briefly talked about earlier—and they reinvest it partly in loan sharking, in illegal or legal businesses with nominee owners, and so on. It's this entire financial system that is the problem.
9:55 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Others among you also referred to police infighting. I understand this is a problem elsewhere in Canada, but is it still a problem in Quebec, where police officers are really used to working in what they now call "mixed squads" and have seen for themselves how effective it is to share their criminal intelligence databases? Are we still seeing a lot of police infighting, quarrels between police departments, in Quebec?
9:55 a.m.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Retired), As an Individual
From my experience I can tell you that, at first, there was a lot. When I reached retirement, in 2006, I think Quebec police officers led by example, and those from Ontario quickly followed. Now, with regard to all the major organized crime files, regardless of what they are, the Hells Angels, the West End Gang, the Italians, there's a round table and operation leaders meet at specific times. The cases are totally covered, with all available information, for everyone: there's a complete exchange. Across the country, it's obviously not yet perfect, but the best example is that of Quebec. With Ontario, those two provinces are currently the leaders in this area. Even though there are still some hitches in other provinces, the idea has been implanted. Police officers obviously know that the best results are obtained when they work together.
10 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
You've all told us that amending the laws can play a very small role in the organization of police work. I would like to know what remains to be amended in the legislation that represents a barrier to effective work against organized crime. I believe you've all observed the situation. A Crown prosecutor said, following a case that he had won, that the fight against organized crime is like housework: you always have to start over again. So there will still be more to do.
But are there still any needless legislative obstacles that we should correct in order to facilitate the work, while obviously respecting the fact that we are living in a society where there is the rule of law, with the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms? We aren't about to change that.
10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Ed Fast
That's a very broad question. I think we may not have time to answer all of those. What we will do is start with Mr. Sher, very briefly, on the key legislative reforms he would suggest. Then I'll move to Mr. Comartin, because he did reserve his questions for the open panel.
10 a.m.
Investigative Journalist, As an Individual
I would favour going back to what I said about creative thinking outside the box, and not relying unnecessarily on some federal legislation, although I think there have been some serious ideas about updating wiretap legislation, because in the era of BlackBerrys, pagers, and Internet communications we're still living in the legislation that deals with black telephones.
Proceeds of crime have to be looked at much more seriously. A police officer once told me that he had arrested a biker over and over again and the biker didn't mind, but the day they came and took away his Lamborghini the guy was crying. In other words, the idea is that you go after organized crime where it hurts, which is in their pocketbooks. So are there ways to tighten up and improve proceeds of crime?
Again, I would really encourage thinking outside the box. One example of a failed prosecution is when Revenue Canada, as it was called at the time, decided to go after the Hells Angels in Vancouver. Revenue Canada is allowed to go after any group it wants, whether it's fishermen or farmers, not in an indiscriminate way, but to say let's look at them. What they would do is look at this person's job, how much money they had made, and what they had declared. They took on the Hells Angels for a variety of reasons. I can go into details later if you like. The prosecution didn't necessarily work, but again it disrupted and really angered the Hells Angels. That's a creative way. That's how they got Al Capone.
October 22nd, 2009 / 10 a.m.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
That's how the Italians shut them down in Italy, by using that kind of manoeuvre.
I'd like to go back to the issue of the relationship between the old crime gangs that are still here, the Hells Angels, and the street gangs. We're picking some of this up in Ontario, where the street gangs are in many respects being manipulated by the biker gangs--less so by the old organized crime rings. Could I get your comments on what the situation is in Quebec?
Not only here, in Montreal, but in Quebec, more generally.
10 a.m.
Investigative Journalist (Retired), As an Individual
One of the problems I see is that you want to put names and photos to organizations. However, whether it's the mafia, the Hells Angels or street gangs, they're all doing the same thing. Criminals have different friends, different associates and different associations, but, in fact, they are doing exactly the same thing. The Hells Angels and the mafia have agreed to share territories at certain times. The street gangs do the dirty work for the mafia. Murders take place in Montreal. A black man who was a member of a street gang was hired to carry out a contract. The person targeted was a big mafia member. These groups have frequent connections.
Putting them in boxes, names... When the Italian police says that the mafia has been dismantled, it's speaking the truth. They have dismantled an organization called the mafia, but the individuals who haven't been arrested have re-established another organization. They carry different names, in various regions of Sicily, but the result is exactly the same.
10:05 a.m.
Investigative Journalist, As an Individual
It's complicated, but think of it from the point of view of a hierarchy, of competing jurisdictions, and also the whole question of three generations. In other words, the lowest level of organized crime is breaking legs; the thugs, killers, street gangs. The second level is when you are the king of the castle of organized criminals. Think of Mom Boucher. You're well known, you're known as a thug and a criminal. The top level is when you are now clean. You've taken your profits and now you're in organized, clean business.
If you look at that hierarchy, there are shifts. There are members of the Hells Angels who started off as street thugs to break legs for the Mafia. They then moved up. Walter Stadnick is an example of that in Hamilton. He then becomes a top organized crime leader. But eventually the Hells Angels became powerful enough.... Originally they were the gofer boys for the Mafia when the Mafia brought in the drugs and they would just do the distribution. They literally became powerful enough, especially in Quebec, as we documented in one of our books, to sit at the same table to negotiate the price of cocaine. Then at one point the Hells Angels felt strong enough to go directly to Latin America to import and go around the Mafia. So they begin to move up.
Members of the Hells Angels in B.C. are clean enough now that they've invested in the stock market and become legitimate businessmen. They own cellphone stores and clothing stores. So they've moved up to that level. What you're now seeing in British Columbia is that the Hells Angels can now use the street gangs, which are still at the bottom level, for some of their dirty work. But when the Hells Angels are in trouble, some of the more powerful street gangs--like the United Nations or the Independent Soldiers-- begin to move up to that second level.
It constantly shifts. So look at it from that perspective.
10:05 a.m.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Retired), As an Individual
Today they're highly opportunistic. They're taking advantage of the void created by the big arrests among the Italians and the Hells Angels. They're elbowing their way in to determine who's going to do what. It's disorganized right now, but, as Julian was saying, the Hells Angels have in a way moved from thug status to the status of band council members. In the major import operations, there can be a member from the Hells Angels, one from the West End Gang and one of the Italians around the table. Each one puts up a certain amount. That happens constantly. It's about those who have contacts. We saw that even when the RCMP opened its exchange counter. That operation was aimed at the Italians, but all the Montreal riffraff ultimately went to launder their money there.
Of course, I agree that we should ban the Hells Angels. It's also a matter of image. You have to restore public trust, but that's definitely not the ultimate solution. I know these people will come back, will become criminals again. However, they'll be less organized; they won't be able to count. Within the structure and in the context of criminal acts, the guy from Quebec won't be as close to the one from Ontario or British Columbia.
As for changes to the act, I wonder why offenders should serve 50% of sentences for gangsterism and not 100%. There's no justification for that. We've determined how much profit they've made, so why don't we tell them they'll stay in prison until they pay that money back? That seems tough, but why take baby steps? Let's bring the hammer down. After all, we're talking about gangsterism.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your appearance here today. It's very enlightening. The good part about it is that you're investigative journalists. In other words, you don't just write the splash story. You dig into it and you find out exactly where the roots of the problems are.
And of course there's my friend Mr. Lévesque, who's a brother police officer.
I'd like to start off with a couple of observations, and I'm going to ask you for some shorter answers. If I happen to make a statement and I'm at least 50% there, let me know, because there's no 100% answer.
These are some of the things that Mr. Auger and Mr. Lévesque said. Mr. Auger at one point said that if they get out of jail after serving only one-sixth of the sentence, people don't see that as a deterrent. Mr. Lévesque said that when found guilty, some of them serve about one half of their sentence.
We know that the sentencing regimes of this country, at least those who have been paying attention.... At the federal level we've been addressing some of those items with Bill C-15, serious drug crimes--we're sort of upping the ante for those--and of course Bill C-25, truth in sentencing, which I believe is going to get royal assent soon.
I'm going to ask this to all three witnesses. Do you believe that stricter sentences for those committing serious violent crimes and serious drug crimes are part of the solution?
We'll start with Mr. Sher.
10:10 a.m.
Investigative Journalist, As an Individual
Strangely enough, despite the books I've written, I'm actually not a tough law and order type, in the sense that I'm not convinced that more prison time or sentences necessarily work. But they can be important, and I think what we're forgetting is that they're important not just to get the bad guy or the top bad guy. Where they're really effective, and the way they work in the States, is by pressuring the middle guy or the small guy to flip. In other words, it's called squeal and deal. That's the problem.
When the police arrest a mid-level biker or criminal and want them to go up to the top--that's what we're talking about, getting organized crime--if the guy's looking at two years and he knows he's going to be out in a few months, he has no incentive to flip against his boss. It's when you're facing 10 or 15 years on a drug charge; that's how the Americans get this top crime leader. That's why it's important.
10:10 a.m.
Investigative Journalist (Retired), As an Individual
Like my colleague, I think sentences will help the minor criminals a little, but they won't have a major impact on society.
10:10 a.m.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Retired), As an Individual
I think the question isn't so much the number of years in the sentence as the amount of time the individual will have to spend on the inside. Earlier I was talking about a minimum percentage of 50% and, why not, 75%? As I was saying, there's no reintegration into society for these people. I agree that informers are the key to the success of any major police investigation and that these people too, like the big bosses, must receive harsh sentences.