Justice Committee on April 13th, 2010

[Insp Don Perron]

I am a firm believer that when you can remove any wealth or any property that should not be in the hands of criminals, it is an effective way to reduce crime. When you can do that, and not only do that but return it to victims, I think it's even better. It is a tremendously effective tool to reduce crime, and again, if we can return it to victims, even better.

We are not in the business to generate a profit. We are in the business to apply the provisions, to reduce the criminal economy, to reduce crime.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you.

Do I have a few minutes? I have a question for Mr. Froese.

We have heard some reports in the media in recent years of how organized criminals can use casinos to launder funds. I remember one case, a rather creative case, where I think the criminal was using his mother. She would go to a casino in Ontario and play the slot machines and then cash out. She would put in a lot of cash, play a little bit, and then take it all out and launder it through the casino's cashier. What do you think is the impact of casinos in terms of money laundering for organized crime?

[Ken Froese]

It's another vehicle that organized crime can use. It's a matter of getting controls in place to be able to, at the very least, report suspicious transactions to FINTRAC, which is the case. I think the expanded reporting by FINTRAC on activities to police forces, as they get the resources to be able to look into that, will be very helpful over the long term.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Mr. Rathgeber.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for your attendance here today.

Inspector Boucher, I have a couple of follow-up technical questions with respect to witness protection.

I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding the difference between the federal and provincial programs. You indicated in your opening comments that the provincial programs, including the one that's anticipated in my province of Alberta, deal with the short-term needs of witnesses, as opposed to the RCMP and the federal programs, which deal with ongoing support. Did I understand that correctly?

[C/Supt Thomas Bucher]

Generally, provincial programs and municipal programs were, I believe, designed to look after shorter-term needs than the federal witness protection program. They were designed to ensure that somebody could travel to court to testify without fear of retribution or harm. The extension of long-term protection is not generally a fact or a consideration for those types of programs.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Generally, is that the line of demarcation? After trial the person becomes the responsibility of the RCMP, and up to trial they're the responsibility of the municipal or provincial program. Or is that too simple?

[C/Supt Thomas Bucher]

No, it would depend on the agency that has carriage of the case, which agency enters into a protection agreement. So it varies.

So, no, that wouldn't be an accurate demarcation.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Assuming Alberta passes legislation, half the provinces will have provincial programs. The Maritimes and B.C. will not.

Who looks after short-term witness protection in the provinces that don't have provincial programs?

[C/Supt Thomas Bucher]

Generally, it would be the RCMP.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I have one final question. Talk about the prairie provinces having legislative programs, as opposed to Ontario and Quebec, which have policy-based programs. I don't know that I understand the distinction.

[C/Supt Thomas Bucher]

There are programs based on internal policy for those agencies, so they're not legislated programs.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I see. So the legislatures in the prairie provinces have passed legislation requiring their police forces to do this.

[C/Supt Thomas Bucher]

That's right.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

I have a couple of questions as well.

Mr. Froese, you referred to FINTRAC's cash reporting thresholds, and I think your suggestion was that some of those perhaps should be reduced. You referred to the hotel business as an example. Do you have a more comprehensive list and suggestions as to what those thresholds should be so that law enforcement can be more effective in following up on these transactions?

[Ken Froese]

My understanding is that hotels aren't covered now, so that would be an expanded coverage. I haven't developed a full list. In my personal experience, though, I've looked at how people spend cash in big enough amounts so that knowing those amounts would help to trace either where they're travelling to or how they're spending their cash. That brings in hotels or improvements to houses for which there are construction-related costs. Those would be the two main categories I would consider.

The police, I'm sure, could add other items to the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Given the fact that you and the individuals we have present today as witnesses are perhaps best placed to provide a list of businesses that should perhaps be covered, or thresholds that should be reduced, I'm going to go out on a limb and ask you to explore whether you or others could provide us with that. That would be helpful in our study.

[Ken Froese]

I'll speak to Inspector Perron after we leave.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I know I'm putting you on the spot here.

[Ken Froese]

Sure. We'll do something.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Perron, you had referred to the forfeiture program, which I believe is offence-based, for which the application isn't made until after conviction. Is that correct?

[Insp Don Perron]

The application to forfeit the property is made after a conviction has been registered. The application to actually seize or restrain is made before that, during the investigation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Is the property frozen while the trial is ongoing?

[Insp Don Perron]

Yes, it is.