Justice Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2009

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Monsieur Noël.

[André Noel]

No.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

One of the things that I look at as a law and order type of guy or a public safety person is this. If someone is arrested for a drug offence, what I call a serious drug offence--in other words, it's not just one or two joints, there's a significant amount of drugs available--that means that person's fingers or that person's activity in that is more substantial than just recreational use.

We've seen instances where, through our sentencing regime and the way our prisons work, in order not to have these people spend a long time in prison, because it costs a lot of money to keep people in jail, some of them only serve one-sixth of their sentence.

So going along with what you are saying, and to allow the police to use the tool and the crown prosecutors to use the tool of using the lower end of the echelon to get to the top guys, should we as a government and as a country and should Parliament be looking at doing away with some of these serving only one-sixth? Because if you were sentenced to six years because you had x number of ounces of cocaine, crack cocaine, or ecstasy, whatever the case may be, you could go to jail. If it's your first offence, you're only going to probably spend one-sixth of your sentence. So if you got six years--the judge is really tough on you and sent you to jail for six years--you're out in a year, or at least two and a half years.

If we did away with that, but somehow allowed the judicial system and the prosecution and the investigators to do what you want to do, do you think that would be a good idea?

[Julian Sher]

I think the law's a blunt instrument, and the problem with minimum mandatory or sweeping, tough drug laws.... If you look at what's happened in the States, the prisons are filled with people who got caught up, for whatever reason, but who may not be the top organized crime, the people you want to go after. I think what could be more interesting in some of the things even the federal government has already done is to look at things like gang enhancement laws.

It's the same thing with hate laws. It's bad when you beat up somebody, but if you beat up somebody because they're black or gay, there should be more punishment. So you shouldn't shoot people, but if you're driving by a neighbourhood and the only reason you're shooting, or part of it is because of the gang—you shouldn't sell drugs, but if you're doing it as part of a gang, there should be stiffer sentences. That is much more interesting because it then makes that distinction between victims and the perpetrators.

[Michel Auger]

Earlier Mr. Petit talked about revolving doors, but individuals who have committed their first offence and have committed a non-violent crime should still be able to serve one-sixth of their sentence. However, that shouldn't apply to individuals linked to a criminal organization. The sentence should be harsher. Mr. Lévesque was talking about the full sentence, not even two-thirds. What is certain is that you should at least increase the sentence, not reduce it.

[Jean-Pierre Lévesque]

I agree with Mr. Auger 100%. The one-sixth rule should apply to people for whom social reintegration is possible. When you talk about gangsterism and organized crime, history proves it: it doesn't work. Let's not waste our time with that. In the case of these people, we should never allow them to serve only one-sixth of their sentence, regardless of the crime they commit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Just a question. A number of you have to leave at 10:30--is that correct?

[Julian Sher]

I have a plane at noon, so I could probably leave at around a quarter to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right. It looks like one of our witnesses for the next session.... There are only two groups represented, and one is going to be pushed off to the afternoon. What I would like to suggest is that we add another hour here.

You don't all have to stay for the full period of time, but it gives an opportunity, because a lot of this testimony we have not heard before in Vancouver or in Ottawa, especially on the mafia, as well as the Hells Angels. Most of the information we've received so far is on street gangs, what we're experiencing on the west coast. So this is very helpful.

Are we okay extending this particular panel for an extra hour? Does that work?

All right, we'll proceed on that basis.

[Michel Auger]

I can stay until a quarter to eleven.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

That's great. You can leave when you have to and we'll continue on with the other two witnesses.

Mr. Sher.

[Julian Sher]

If you have any specific....

You have to leave at 10:45.

So the two of us have to leave at 10:45--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Understood.

[Julian Sher]

--if you have any specific questions for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right.

Who's next? Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I would like to thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

One moment. I want to make sure we get the order right.

It's actually Ms. Jennings. Ms. Jennings, please.

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

Thank you.

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

You have five minutes.

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

Once again you talked about thinking outside the box, saying that certain legislative measures can be taken to facilitate the work of our police departments, such as modernizing the Criminal Code provisions on electronic surveillance.

I'm pleased that the government has finally introduced its bill to do that job. I had tabled a private member's bill in the House on that subject, but I was so far down the list that we would have had to wait three years to start debating it and vote on it.

There are two pieces of legislation before the House of Commons already. One is the modernization of investigative techniques act, which I read, and it's exactly the same, although I think the government has used a different title--it just shifted clauses from one section to another--and there's another piece of legislation. So that's good news.

Do the special squads include people from the Canada Revenue Agency or from the provincial department of revenue from start to finish, in Quebec or across Canada?

[Michel Auger]

I was aware of a number of investigations where there was an enormous amount of cooperation among the various departments—Immigration, Border Services Agency, etc. Today, there's a lot of cooperation, and that's what has vastly improved the investigations and produced better results. Police officers have cooperated with the various groups. Organized crime investigations are very costly, and police officers don't have enough energy or money. The Montreal Police Department is virtually bankrupt, and the RCMP is focusing on Vancouver and on the next summit. They don't have money for ongoing investigations; that's very expensive.

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

One of the assistance measures that the federal government could offer would be to create a special fund or to invest in police departments so that these special squads have access to funds.

One of the best ways to deter criminals is for them to know that they run a high risk of being captured. Once captured, the justice process will take place quite quickly, and if they are found guilty, they will have to serve a prison term.

Apart from investing in specialized training for prosecutors and police officers, what can we change in the Criminal Code provisions to ensure that, once criminal charges are laid, the justice process is accelerated and really has a deterrent effect?

[Michel Auger]

The system in the United States has a major deterrent effect. A biker named Rick Vallée was arrested in Canada for a murder committed in the United States. He was convicted and, if I remember correctly, sentenced to 25 years in prison and to a compensatory fine for the family of the victim of $1 million. He can't be released until the compensation has been paid to the victim's family. That's really a deterrent effect. We would do well to gather ideas from the United States.

[Julian Sher]

I have two quick points.

Speed of prosecution is extremely important. There are gang trials that are dragging on in British Columbia. This also causes the problem that police officers can't be going out and investigating because they're constantly being dragged back into court.

An important point for you all to investigate is the Revenue Canada connection. You should check what happened in the B.C. example, because there are tricky areas where Revenue Canada can't be seen as being used by the police, so the barriers have to be set up. If it can be done effectively, it can be very powerful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Perhaps I could touch on one thing.

You mentioned the long trials. Our committee is actually undertaking a study of designated organized crime organizations, and we've pretty well completed the work on that. But it's my understanding that one of the reasons they drag on is exactly that: it takes so long to determine whether the individual's part of an organized crime organization.