First let me respond generally to a concern you've heard time and time again, and that is resources. There is no question about it that one of the things the committee has to be concerned about is the demand for resources so that the police in this country can try to keep up or be one step ahead, especially as we move into areas of identity theft and the use of the Internet, which is a new era for us, a new time. It seems to me that in the first instance you have to make sure the police are resourced properly so they can be up to speed on the technology necessary to combat this new type of crime.
As an aside, it's very important when I use the word “collaboration” that police forces collaborate. In one of the reports I read there were three paragraphs indicating that different police organizations or units are looking for funding. So there has to be that amalgamated approach to resourcing and making sure the police get the resources they need.
However, you can't take these three examples you have suggested and then try to find a solution that covers all the possibilities. I don't want to use the word “inappropriately”, but we don't want a rigid response to what we think may be perceived problems.
Let's talk about compelling telecommunications companies to make it easier. I would respectfully submit that there has to be some movement in that area, but how do you do it? The balance, who is the gatekeeper, is really important. So there is no question about it that in this area of throwaway phones, etc., there is a new type of criminal conduct that's not provincial, not federal, but international. Probably that's something that really needs to be looked at. How do we best get the providers to pay attention to this problem, as a community, which they are, right? So I think there's room to look at this.
In relation to forfeiture, in my respectful submission it depends on what you're talking about here. There are different forms of what I'll call organized crime. My friend, Mr. Henry, so articulately talked about there being no organized crime in these communities. And there are a number of people who gather together to find a sort of culture or identification. There is another type of organized crime that we probably started talking about 15 years ago, and that is the bikers, the organized crime organizations that are motivated by money. That's what it is; it's a business they stepped into because the government regulates it. In my respectful submission, that's a different sort of group we may want to target.
But forfeiture raises all kinds of issues of privacy rights. Whose interests are being attacked here? So you have to have a stakeholder, you have to have a balance here. And I have great concern about a general response to forfeiture before a finding of guilt, because often it's the person who is the innocent third party who suffers.
These are good ideas, these are interesting ideas, but they have to be looked at in a global sense. And make sure that whoever is targeted, there is a balance in terms of the presumption of innocence and whose property it is, because the people who are affected by immediate forfeiture and by some of these responses are not the people we're targeting. It's the flow; it's the people who are, in effect, in some respects, victimized in the community.
What was the third one, Mr. Murphy?